Sitting of 2 April 1990

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]
(By Order)
RIVER TEES BARRAGE AND CROSSING BILL [Lords]
(By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 April.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the Government Actuary's estimate that personal pensions schemes would cost the national insurance fund £2·018 billion in 1990–91 has been updated; what is his most recent estimate of the cost; and what the cost is expected to be in 1991–92.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent estimate of the cost of personal pensions schemes to the national insurance fund in 1990–91; and what is the cost expected to be in 1991–92.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The Government Actuary's latest estimate of the cost to the national insurance fund in 1990–91 of personal pensions is £1,910 million, assuming that 3·9 million personal pensions are in force by the end of 1989–90. If the assumed number in force remains unchanged to the end of 1990–91, then the estimated cost in 1991–92 is £2,090 million.
  Mr. Haynes: This is another con trick by the Government. The Secretary of State did not admit, but I hope that he will, that the Government will run the insurance fund into a deficit of £500 million. That will be their answer. Who will suffer? In the main, it will be pensioners. That is how the Government treat pensioners. They should be ashamed of themselves. They are filling the pockets of the rich by pouring money into private pension funds so that somebody can get a nice rake-off at the expense of pensioners. It is a shocking state of affairs.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman made his points with his characteristic charm, but he appears not to have looked at the figures on the national insurance fund, which currently is running a surplus twice as high as the level recommended by the Government Actuary. It is expected to be higher in the forthcoming year, partly as a result of steps that I have already taken to deal with a problem that might otherwise have arisen. The earlier statistics show
  876
  that about 90 per cent. of people with personal pensions earn less than £13,000 and that more than 40 per cent. earn less than £6,000 a year. If the hon. Gentleman regards those people as rich, he is living in a dream world.
  Mr. Jones: I cannot ask my question in the manner of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), but if, as the Secretary of State suggested, the fund is in surplus, why is it not being used to pay pensioners a decent pension in line with European pensions? Is not the net effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield said, that pensioners are paying for the profits being made by insurance companies?
  Mr. Newton: Let us be clear, because there is considerable misunderstanding, that the overwhelming bulk of the cost is not the so-called incentive but the rebates for contracting out introduced by the Labour Government in the mid-1970s. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has not suggested the ending of contracting out. A major reason for the expected drop in the balance of the fund is the substantial reduction in national insurance contributions which the Government made last October to help many lower-paid people.
  Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pensioners want financial security and stability in retirement? Do not employees have many choices—remaining in SERPS, taking out a personal pension or belonging to an occupational pension scheme? Why are Opposition Members so negative on this matter?
  Mr. Newton: I must leave Opposition Members to explain that. Personal pensions have been an astonishing success, which reflects people's welcome of the greater choice that they now have. The Opposition's attitude is yet another illustration of their persistent unwillingness to let people decide things for themselves.
  Mr. Meacher: On what possible grounds can even this Government spend £2 billion on a bribe for people to invest in a highly speculative and risky pension scheme when they freeze child benefit for three years, deny pensioners a share in rising national incomes by breaking the link with earnings and will not even financially protect pensioners from eviction from residential and nursing homes? When will the Government ever learn that the people totally repudiate that order of values?
  Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is absolute nonsense to suggest that, in general, pensioners have not been sharing in the country's rising prosperity. I have always accepted that there are less well-off pensioners, whom we have been trying to help in other ways. Since the Conservative party took office, pensioners' incomes have, on average, been rising faster than those of the rest of the population, partly because of the growth of occupational and now personal pensions, adding to the security of provision for retirement. If the hon. Gentleman's remarks about rebates, which embrace the existing contracting-out—
  Mr. Meacher: No.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman described as a bribe a sum, two thirds of which consists of the rebates introduced by the Labour Government in the mid-1970s. I take the hon. Gentleman's remarks as a clear threat to the continuation of those arrangements.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposals to help people who are partially incapable of work.
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We will be introducing, from April 1992, a wholly new benefit for this group, to be called the disability employment credit. For the first time, there will then be a benefit aimed specifically at helping disabled people to support themselves in work.
  Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend announces an important measure which will give a good deal of self-respect to disabled people who wish to work. They will not now be penalised for doing so. Is he involved in consultations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to ensure that sufficient companies provide places of work and proper facilities for disabled people so that his Department's scheme can be fully taken up?
  Mr. Scott: The Department of Employment already spends about £350 million a year to obtain work for disabled people and keep them in employment. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly bring forward new proposals, to which the whole House will look forward, to provide services for disabled people.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister confirm that he expects to save £10 million on the new benefit, as I was told in a recent parliamentary reply, and that this must be a policy decision, as transparently it cannot have been based on detailed costings? Why is this such a big new deal for disabled people when the Government expect to save £10 million and will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a consultative document on this new benefit?
  Mr. Scott: The Government obviously have a duty to produce the best estimate they can and to put it before the House. There is great uncertainty about the final expenditure on this benefit because we do not know what the take-up will be. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not criticise the principle that disabled people who are in work but who perhaps are unable to work to full capacity should be supported by the benefit system.

  Income Support
  Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on income support entitlement in respect of elderly people living in private residential homes.
  Mr. Newton: As I announced to the House on 28 March, I propose to make further substantial increases at a cost of £45 million from 13 August to the income support limits that apply to people in residential care and nursing homes. These are in addition to the increases in the limits which will take effect on 9 April and which are the largest increases since 1985, amounting to £100 million a year.
  Mr Smith: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's concessions last week, does he accept that many thousands of sick and elderly people face a considerable shortfall on their residential costs in nursing and residential homes? The survey carried out by the National Federation of
  878
  Housing Associations showed that one in five faced a shortfall of £60 a week or more. Is not it time that the Secretary of State acted to help those people, to stop them facing eviction and to end the needless worry to which his policies have subjected them?
  Mr. Newton: I have taken action that I think will contribute to the hon. Gentleman's objective. I repeat the point that I made towards the end of our debate on the subject last week. Many of the bodies to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the National Federation of Housing Associations and any other voluntary and charitable bodies—have made it clear to me that, although they believe that there should be an increase in the limits, they do not expect the Government necessarily to make up the full difference between the charges that the homes levy and the current income support limits, because it is part of their policy to provide a higher standard of amenity than they think it reasonable to expect the taxpayer to pay for.
  Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend's announcement last Wednesday was warmly received by those who run private residential homes and by the people who live in them. He will know that many wish to move to the new regime outlined last Wednesday as soon as practicable. Will my right hon. Friend say whether, if good progress is made in the current year in negotiating contracts between local authorities and private homes, income support can be raised in 1991–92 to the new levels envisaged in his statement?
  Mr. Newton: I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend clearly last week: to the extent that we have good information about what local authorities are contracting to pay in advance of the next uprating due in April 1991, I shall, of course, ensure that that is taken into account in setting the limits for next year.
  Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the £5 extra for elderly people in residential homes which he announced last week is little more than a gesture—merely the contribution to which he referred—given that the National Federation of Housing Associations survey found that in more than half of the homes the shortfall is now over £30 a week? If Conservative Back-Bench Members are satisfied with that, does not it show that they are far more concerned with propping up a Government on the ropes than with protecting 176,000 elderly and frail patients from eviction?
  Mr. Newton: First, the hon. Gentleman neglected to acknowledge that the £15 extra is on top of the £10 increase that is about to take place, making £15 extra in all on the current limit of £140. That is an increase of significantly more than 10 per cent. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman failed to acknowledge that the major pressure is undoubtedly on nursing homes, in respect of which I announced a further increase of £10, making £20 in all.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Lester: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest available figures on the proportion of pensioners whose incomes fall in the lowest fifth of national income distribution.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The latest available

  879
  figures show that in 1987 only 24 per cent. of pensioners had incomes in the lowest fifth of national income distribution, whereas in 1979, 38 per cent. of pensioners fell into the lowest fifth.
  Mr. Lester: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, which are the result of a policy consistently balanced between state provision and savings and between personal and superannuated pensions. Does she share my view about the remaining 24 per cent.—many of them in agricultural constituencies such as hers—who may have had no opportunity to take out superannuated pensions or make personal provision and who remain in a relatively difficult position? Will she undertake to keep her eye on the programme that we started for the over-75s which recognised their position?
  Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the balanced nature of the Government's policies towards pensioners. He is also right to draw attention to the increase in pensioners' incomes from savings and occupational pensions. He mentioned the October package for older pensioners which we introduced to give them additional help through extra premiums. I remind him of the arrangements for disabled pensioners and for those over 75 and over 80. Finally, I remind him that between 1979 and 1989 expenditure on benefits for the elderly increased by 22 per cent. in real terms.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the best way for the Government to help the 24 per cent. of people who are right at the bottom would be to take away the £26·2 billion that went to the 1 per cent. who are the wealthiest in the population in tax cuts over the past 10 years and hand that to the 24 per cent? At the same time, the Government should hand back the £12 a week that the 24 per cent. lost as a result of the Prime Minister and her Ministers cutting the link between earnings and prices for pensioners.
  Mrs. Shephard: The Government have honoured their manifesto pledge to keep pensions in line with the rise in prices. I repeat that the most important point is the rise in pensioners' total incomes. I remind the hon. Gentleman that between 1979 and 1987 pensioners in the lowest quintile experienced a 19 per cent. increase in real terms in their average total net incomes.
  Mr. David Martin: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of income from savings, will she raise with the Treasury the treatment of interest under the £16,000 savings rule, the majority of which, as I understand it, is treated as having a 20 per cent. return? If that cannot be changed, will my hon. Friend ask the Treasury where one can find investment yielding 20 per cent. net, because I would like to know myself?
  Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend draws attention to the greatly welcomed increase in capital limits announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget. I remind my hon. Friend that 150,000 pensioners stand to gain as a result of the change in the rules on the capital limits. That was no mean achievement for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  My hon. Friend appears to be confusing the capital limits and the 15p taper. For each £1 of tariff income, 15p is removed from the allowance made to the beneficiary. I
  880
  do not think that my hon. Friend has fully understood the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the capacity of the social fund to respond to the claims of all the people in need (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Scotland.
  Mr. Scott: Since April 1988, the social fund has concentrated help on those most in need in Great Britain, principally recipients of income support, through the payment of 2·2 million loans and grants at a gross cost of £347 million. The corresponding figures for Scotland are 212,000 at a gross cost of over £34 million. Last week I announced an increased budget of £215 million for the fund in 1990–91.
  Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that this is a disgraceful piece of legislation and that the social fund will take over from the loan sharks? Some of my constituents are a giro away from starvation and the social fund offers no help because of its cash limits. Does the Minister agree that it is time that we returned to single payments to deal with the problems of the poor?
  Mr. Scott: As I recall, the single payments scheme did not have many friends on the Opposition Benches. It was subject to a great deal of criticism. Moving away from a scheme that depended entirely on whether claimants fitted the terms of particular regulations to one in which social fund officers can use their discretion within the limits of the budget is a great step in the right direction.
  Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the old single payments scheme many rackets were run by second-hand shops? Aided and abetted by some social workers, people handed in shopping lists for 130-odd items on demand. That could not be right; it was a licence to print money. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the new system—the social fund—has the merit of circulating the same amount of money, and more money as it is added to, and benefits many more people because the money must be repaid and people must think twice about the items for which they ask?
  Mr. Scott: In was the latter point which enabled me to increase the gross budget to £215 million for the year that has just started. I agree with my hon. Friend that there was widespread abuse under the single payments scheme. The size of the budget was doubling every two years and we were right to get rid of it and move to the social fund.
  Mr. Kennedy: Does not the Minister realise that the social fund has created a poverty cul-de-sac? Many people will not make the initial approach to inquire about support because they know that it will be in the form of a loan and that it will be debited from their other already meagre state benefits. What analysis has the Minister's Department carried out in Scotland and in the United Kingdom of the number of people who, after their initial approach when the changes were introduced, no longer even bother going

  881
  to their local DSS offices to find out whether support is available because they know that they cannot afford to pay it back?
  Mr. Scott: As for analysis and research, apart from monitoring the position in our local offices, as the hon. Gentleman knows we have commissioned research by the social policy research unit at York university, and we look forward to its analysis of the position and in particular its judgment whether the social fund is meeting the needs that it was designed to meet. I should think that we shall get the report early next year.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average increase in incomes since 1979 for those pensioners who receive all of their income from state benefits.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The latest available figures show that between 1979 and 1987 pensioners who received all their income from state benefits had experienced a real terms increase of over 27 per cent. At the same time the proportion of pensioners in this position fell from 22·5 per cent. in 1979 to 15·9 per cent. in 1987.
  Mr. Rowe: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Given that the Conservatives will be in charge of this country for the next decade as well, will she assure hon. Members that the group of people who were long-term unemployed at the end of the 1970s will receive the same consideration as old-age pensioners who depend on state benefits at the moment?
  Mrs. Shephard: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to apply successful social security policies which in turn depend on a successful economy. When they are re-elected, the Government will do just that.
  Mr. Eastham: Are not the figures that the Minister presented rather misleading when one considers that VAT, gas bills, and electricity bills have nearly doubled and that people will have to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of the poll tax?
  Mrs. Shephard: No, Sir. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures that I have given represent a real terms increase.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of people who have taken out appropriate personal pensions.
  Mr. Newton: Just over 3·6 million people have so far taken out appropriate personal pensions.
  Mr. Hayes: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend says and accept that pensioners on the state pension had an increase of 27 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1987. But does my right hon. Friend aggreciate that not everyone regards the state pesion as a top-up and that, despite the Government's generosity and his Department's commitment, many people find it difficult to make ends meet? Will my right hon. Friend try in the next few months to bring forward some imaginative proposals to help people who are in serious difficulties?
  Mr. Newton: I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that we regard the state basic retirement pension—the national insurance pension—not as a top-up but as the foundation of provision for retirement. That is why we have protected its value. The important point is that personal pensions and occupational pensions are a growing part of people's income in retirement, and we welcome that. We also acknowledge that not everybody has such pensions or savings. It is to that group that we directed an additional £200 million last October. I note my hon. Friend's proper ambition to see the process go further.
  Mr. Flynn: Does the Secretary of State share the anxiety of the regulatory body, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, which has described the advertising of personal pensions as wildly inaccurate? Does he agree with the independent pension investment research consultant who estimated that at least 1 million people will end up with totally indequate pensions because they have opted to leave SERPS? As that deception of 1 million people has been the result of Government legislation, when will the Secretary of State announce his plan to inform those people that their only chance of a decent pension is to return to SERPS?
  Mr. Newton: Obviously, I do not accept the basic thrust of the analysis implied in the hon. Gentleman's question. It was Government legislation, the Financial Services Act 1986, that set up LAUTRO—that is the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation—precisely to ensure that advertising of financial services of all types was proper and not misleading. That very fact shows our concern to ensure that people are properly advised.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current value of child benefit it it had been uprated in line with inflation over the past three years.
  Mr. Scott: The value would be £8·60 a week from later this month.
  Mr. Orme: Is not that figure an indictment of the Government's policy and of the amount of which parents and children have been robbed? When will the Minister's Department stand up for child benefit? In the past, the Secretary of State was known to be an open supporter of such a benefit, so why are not he and his colleagues fighting to ensure that there is an uprating every year and that mothers and children receive the benefits to which they are entitled?
  Mr. Scott: Child benefit remains important help for many families—in fact, for 6·7 million families. I tend to share the view of Mrs. Castle, when she was Secretary of State and introduced the benefit, that indexation of child benefit would be inappropriate and that Parliament would wish to exercise its judgment about the balance of family support, year by year.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the existence of virtually any rate of inflation is a precise and inescapable index of the fact that the community as a whole has overfunded its requirements in relation to resources by precisely that amount? To the extent that a

  883
  beneficiaries—or any one else in society—have their income guaranteed by uprating, is not that a guarantee that inflation will continue? If not, does my right hon. Friend agree that that creates the massive problem of who will bear the burden of reducing inflation?
  Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend has added yet another reason why it is inappropriate to index this benefit, as has been suggested by the Opposition. For other reasons, we need to assess our priorities on family support each year when the time comes.

  Personal Pensions
  Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about his proposals requiring a pension scheme to fund increases on wind-up.
  Mr. Newton: We have received a number of representations, some suggesting possible repercussions for certain businesses and some suggesting that a requirement for pension increases should apply generally. In the light of the representations, I announced that pension schemes will be required to pay annual increases on pensions resulting from future service. On pensions based on past service, in addition, where schemes have a surplus, they will have to guarantee increases to members.
  Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those proposals represent a major step forward in the protection of millions of people who hold occupational pensions? Does he further acknowledge that the greatest protection for holders of pensions is a strong economy and low inflation? Can he give the House any details about pensioners' incomes from occupational pensions since 1979?
  Mr. Newton: My answer to the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question is yes. The average income received by a pensioner with an occupational pension was nearly £45 a week in 1987, which represents a 77 per cent. increase over the amount received in 1979.

  Pensioners
  Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of (a) all pensioners and (b) recently retired pensioners are receiving income from savings.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The latest available figures show that in 1987, 73 per cent. of all pensioners and 82 per cent. of recently retired pensioners received income from savings.
  Mr. Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are encouraging, and is she aware that in 1987 only 24 per cent. of pensioners were in the bottom fifth of national income distribution, whereas in 1979 the figure was 38 per cent? Does she agree that that, too, is encouraging and does she further agree that the Budget will further encourage savings?
  Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the encouragement to save given in the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly the measure known as TESSAs, or tax-exempt
  884
  special savings accounts, which will further increase the value of pensioners' savings. The abolition of the composite rate of tax will also particularly help pensioners.
  Mr. James Lamond: Will the Minister clear up the points raised earlier by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin)? Why are pensioners' savings over £3,000 deemed by her Department and other Departments to give them a return of 20·8 per cent. per annum, when nowhere can that percentage return be found with safety? Should pensioners look for another Barlow Clowes in order to achieve it? Can the Minister give us a list, which we should be happy to pass on to our pensioners, of where they can find that return on their savings?
  Mrs. Shephard: The point about the £1 per week in income that is assumed for each £250 of capital over £3,000 is that it helps to take into account the resources of a claimant in order to target help on those most in need. It is true that some claimants will be taken out of entitlement to benefit because their total income, including tariff income—which is not actual income from savings —is sufficiently high to disqualify them. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not a matter of taking out pound For pound. The assumption is that there is an income of £1 per £250, but the amount that is taken from the allowance paid in benefit is 15p in each pound, which is a generous taper —much more generous than under the previous arrangement.
  Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that as it is proper to encourage saving now for the future, we should not penalise those who saved in the past, and there should be a closer relationship between deemed income and real income? Would she kindly have a word with her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has shown himself to be devoted to savers and savings?
  Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that my hon. Friend is capable himself of having a word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should realise that as a result of the measures, among people with £10,000 of savings, there will be about 70,000 gainers in community charge benefit and about 25,000 gainers in housing benefit. In both cases, it is about half the total number of gainers. That is not a discouragement to savers.
  Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimation has been made by his Department of the effect of the budget on pensioners' households.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget last month—many of which will benefit pensioners, and some of which I have already mentioned.
  Mr. Winnick: Welcome as the raising of the ceiling on savings undoubtedly is—the Opposition have pressed for it for a long time—what justification can there possibly be for pensioners whose total income is £61·81 a week to pay £18 a week in rent, due entirely to the drastic cut in housing benefit in 1988, details of which—and of other cases from my constituency—I have sent to the Minister? Why do the Government continue to treat pensioners with such contempt?
  Mrs. Shephard: There will be many gainers within housing benefit, precisely from the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some 75,000 pensioners as individuals will gain from those announcements.

  Maintenance Payments
  Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being taken to make the arrangements for recovering maintenance from absent fathers more effective; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Newton: We are reviewing the maintenance system to see what changes need to be made in the way that maintenance is assessed and collected, and plan to bring forward proposals later this year. Meanwhile, we are seeking to improve the existing system in various ways, most recently by the proposals contained in a new clause added to the Social Security Bill last week. The amount of maintenance received for lone-parent families on benefit increased from £155 million in 1988–89 to an expected £180 million in 1989–90, and we plan a further increase to £260 million in 1990–91.
  Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable hardship suffered by lone wives and lone mothers when fathers refuse to pay maintenance, sometimes even after court orders have given them instructions to do so? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those absent fathers are cheating not only their own children but the taxpayer, because the £200 million to which he referred could be better spent elsewhere in the social security system?
  Mr. Newton: Yes. I have no doubt that it is right to improve maintenance arrangements in the interests of lone parents and their children, and to ensure that financial responsibilities do not necessarily fall on the taxpayer.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the uprating of child benefit; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Scott: We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, organisations and individuals expressing a wide variety of views.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister persuade the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Prime Minister that, following the Government's U-turn on capital allowances in respect of poll tax, they should take another look at child benefit? Does not the Minister agree that the most cynical form of attack on the incomes of ordinary families is to allow child benefit to wither on the vine? The Government do not have the guts to abolish it altogether, and realise that its value should stay in line with purchasing power and be uprated each year. Will the Minister inform his ministerial colleagues that the 7·6 million families who receive child benefit know, like the lone parents to whom the previous question referred, that it is free of any stigma—which is why it is so important to the mothers of this country?
  Mr. Scott: There is no policy of allowing child benefit to wither on the vine. My right hon. Friend the Secretary
  886
  of State has a duty, year by year, to review that benefit in the light of several factors. In recent years, we decided to concentrate help on less well-off families, poorer pensioners and the long-term sick and disabled, rather than uprate child benefit.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Committal Procedure
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General if there are any proposals for changes in the committal for trial procedure; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): A consultation paper on mode of trial procedure and committal proceedings was issued jointly by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department on 27 July 1989. A copy was placed in the Library, and the responses are now being considered.
    Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there is widespread concern that the committal procedure should be improved. Does he share the view held by practitioners and many others affected that the present system is slow, ineffective, expensive, and thereby unjust? If he does, how soon will all those shortcomings be put right?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has obviously read the consultation paper. The shortcomings that he mentioned are among the many reasons why we put the matter out for consultation, to try to produce an improved procedure.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about recruitment to the Crown prosecution service.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The recruitment of law clerks and support staff is generally satisfactory. The recruitment of lawyers has improved steadily, with total numbers in post rising from 1,200 in 1986 to just under 1,600 today. There is an overall shortage of lawyers of about 20 per cent., but that is partly due to the complement being increased by 25 per cent. Recent improvements in pay, newly authorised changes in the career structure and a very promising legal trainee scheme will all improve the ability of the service to recruit and retain able lawyers.
    Mr. Marshall: In view of events in north London recently, is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the CPS is as competent as it might be?
    The Attorney-General: I believe that my hon. Friend refers to an episode on a Saturday two or three weeks ago in Brent magistrates court, which I dealt with fully in a written answer on 23 March to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and in a Select Committee of this House. That was a regrettable case of human failure coupled with a deficiency in the system. Steps have been taken to remedy the system in that branch and to ensure that all other branches check their own systems.
    Mr. Fraser: I acknowledge the very full explanation that the Attorney-General provided of that incident. If to

    887
    reduce the number of people held in custody and prison numbers, we were to adopt the Scottish system of ensuring that all defendants go to trial within 100 days of being charged, when would the CPS be able to cope with such a time scale?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that there is any deficiency in the ability of the CPS to cope. Time limits of that order and in some cases, less are already in force. In Manchester a limit of 112 days between committal and arraignment has been in force since April 1988.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Attorney-General: I last met the Director of Public Prosecutions on 27 March when we discussed matters of departmental interest.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Attorney-General confirm that incitement to murder is an extremely serious criminal offence? Can he explain why those in Britain who have in the past year called for the murder of a British citizen have had no action taken against them? Surely it is necessary for the law to apply to all.
    The Attorney-General: Of course, the law should apply to all and of course, the offence of incitement to murder is extremely grave. The hon. Gentleman's question has been dealt with by me in an answer to a previous question in the House and has been debated on more than one occasion in another place. The Director of Public Prosecutions has publicly expressed his view that incitement to murder is always a very grave offence. He has drawn the attention of chief constables throughout the country to that view and to the context in which he expressed it, that is, the Salman Rushdie affair.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, in relation to that matter, that there could have been no question, one hopes, of such a decision being taken purely on the grounds of political policy?
    The Attorney-General: No decision is ever taken purely on the grounds of political consequence, if I heard my hon. Friend's last word correctly, nor is it ever taken on grounds of partisan interest. In this case, the decision was taken entirely on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of an admissible nature to give rise to a reasonable prospect of a conviction. That is the test which the code for Crown prosecutors imposes. It is only once that test has been passed that the question arises for any prosecutor as to whether the public interest requires a prosecution. That stage was never reached on that occasion.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree that perjury is always a very serious offence? Is he satisfied that the perjury committed to obtain entry into London's financial markets and the ownership of a major London business has been considered properly in connection with the Harrods affair?
    The Attorney-General: Of course, I agree that perjury is always a serious offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know, of course, that by statute there are certain
    888
    evidential tests to be passed for the prosecution of perjury. The Directors of the Serious Fraud Office and of Public Prosecutions issued a joint statement in which they made clear the reason why no prosecution was being brought for that or any other offence in the case of the Fayeds.
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Attorney-General when he will next be meeting the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the criteria on which it is decided to bring forward a prosecution.
    The Attorney-General: I frequently meet the Director of Public Prosecutions and I expect to do so again this week. The code for Crown prosecutors provides that the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings should depend upon the availability of sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable evidence to afford a realistic prospect of conviction and upon the public interest requiring a prosecution.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the public will welcome that clarification, because many hon. Members receive letters asking why prosecutions are not brought in certain cases? Will he assure me that those guidelines are under regular review?
    The Attorney-General: The guidelines are reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions as the code is repeated as an appendix to the Director's annual report, which is made to me and published. I believe that, in this respect, they are sensible and right, but the Director is always open to suggestions for a variation of them. However, we believe that they have stood the test of time and are fair, sensible and provide a realistic and proper guide.
    Ms. Mowlam: Does the Attorney-General believe that the code is working properly when it takes well over 12 months to review many cases involving police accidents? As he well knows, we in Cleveland have been waiting well over 12 months for a number of cases, about which we have already written to him. We have been told that there have been delays and problems in record keeping. We should like to know this, for both the police and families involved: does the Attorney-General consider that the DPP and the Crown prosecution service are doing the job adequately when people are having to wait that long for decisions?
    The Attorney-General: I think that the hon. Lady would wish to provide a specific instance of what she regards as an unwarrantable delay. There are two types of criticism on the use of the state's prosecuting power: first, that it takes a long time for decisions to be made for a prosecution to be brought and secondly, that a prosecution has been brought hastily—either of which can lead to injustice. There must be a diligent examination of the evidence available; where that evidence is insufficient, a request should be made to the police to see whether it can be improved. If it cannot be improved, then—not until then—the prosecution must be abandoned.

    Trials (Delays)
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Attorney-General what is the average delay between committal and trial in central London, Maidstone, Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.
    The Solicitor-General: The average waiting time between committal to the Crown court and start of hearing is 17 weeks in central London, in Maidstone court administrators group it is 13 weeks, in Bristol it is 15 weeks, in the Cardiff group it is nearly seven weeks, in the Manchester group it is just over 11 weeks, in the Leeds group it is 14 weeks and in the Birmingham group it is 9·6 weeks.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Solicitor-General agree that there is even more delay when the person committed is in one of our prisons or remand homes?
    The Solicitor-General: I should agree, not that there is more delay, but that the delay is more serious if someone is in custody. We take that very much into account when trying to ensure that such cases are brought on more quickly.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Vietnam
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has given any further consideration to restoring bilateral aid to Vietnam.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 12 March.
    Mr. Boyes: It is a bit tricky to ask me to refer to something without giving me notice. Is not it a fact that Vietnam has done all that it can to meet the conditions set by the Minister before aid can be resumed? For example, there have been reforms in the economy, including the introduction of market forces and the lifting of some state controls. In those circumstances, how can the Minister justify withholding aid to one of the poorest countries in the world?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not caught up with the previous oral Question Time and the debate that we had on the night of 27 March. We believe that Vietnam is seeking to put its economy in order, but it has not yet agreed even a shadow programme with international financial institutions and still has outstanding arrears of more than $133 million to the International Monetary Fund and $6 million to the Asian development bank. As soon as a shadow programme is in place, I hope that we shall be able to continue the work, which we have already begun, on possible aid projects for Vietnam.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is not the resolution of the problem of the Vietnamese boat people closely linked to the need to bring Vietnam back into the community of nations? Will my right hon. Friend make that point when she next visits her opposite number in Washington?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are awaiting a reply from Foreign Minister Thach of Vietnam to the representations made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As soon as we hear that the Vietnamese are prepared to take responsibility for their people, who are to return to
    890
    Vietnam, we shall be in a far better position to continue our efforts. I shall make those points when I visit Washington later this month.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does not the Minister accept that the IMF report commends Vietnam for making every effort to meet its payments? Does not she agree that, despite its policy, it has taken out a commercial bank loan in an attempt to clear its debts? How can she justify Vietnam being the only one of the poorest 50 countries in the world to which Britain gives no aid? If she accepts, as she did in the debate on 27 March, that poverty is acute in that country and assistance needed, why does not she have the courage of her convictions and restore bilateral aid to that desperate country?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady heard me say in the debate in question that it was an IMF staff report. The report has not yet been accepted by the IMF board. I explained during the debate that there must be a high percentage of agreement. In the meantime, we hope that Vietnam will have a shadow programme, because that will enable us further to consider what we are already doing in terms of aid through non-governmental organisations for Vietnam. All countries that want to receive programme aid are being required by the donor community to have an economic recovery programme; that is what is needed for Vietnam, as well as the resolution of the Vietnamese boat people problem.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for aid to Vietnam, which overarches the issue of the boat people? It is, after all, one of the poorest countries in the world, and a programme that invited the Vietnamese Government to change the economic framework in which other people were being asked to work would benefit that country and its neighbours very much.
    Mrs. Chalker: I am aware of what my hon. Friend says, but certain elements are required by all donors. We have been examining possible routes for aid in preparation, not only on the basis of the NGO suggestions to us three weeks ago, but by looking at the United Nations development programme projects. Later this month when the Mekong committee meets again to discuss the water-sharing agreement for the Mekong basin, a United Kingdom observer will be present, and we shall see whether that will afford a route for assistance in future when a programme is agreed.

    ODA Training (Women)
    Ms. Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that data are collected on the percentage of women participating in Overseas Development Administration training provided in developing countries.
    Mrs. Chalker: In-country training takes place under a variety of local arrangements, sometimes at the level of individual capital projects. In these circumstances precise statistics are difficult to gather, but we have already taken action to improve our data collection.
    Ms. Abbott: Does the Minister accept that, given that as many as 80 per cent. of women in developing countries are involved in agriculture, it is important that any training involves and reaches women in those countries?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thoroughly agree with what the hon. Lady says, but providing training for women in some of these developing countries is not a straightforward matter, because very often it is the Governments of the recipient countries who nominate. As they nominate so few women, it is difficult to include them, but if the hon. Lady refers to a report published a year ago, entitled "Women, Development and the British Aid Programme", she will find a good deal of detail on the way in which we are helping such women.
    Miss Widdecombe: What steps are being taken by Britain to encourage recipient Governments to nominate more women to development projects? Once the problem has been analysed, what practical steps can this country take?
    Mrs. Chalker: We continue to press recipient countries to nominate more women; it is a point which comes up in every aid discussion that I have with Presidents and Prime Ministers wherever I go in the world.

    European Single Market
    Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has sought from the European Commission a comprehensive assessment of the effects of 1992 in the European Community on African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
    Mrs. Chalker: The United Kingdom has pressed for greater openness in trading in the EC, especially in the fourth Lome convention, to ensure that countries such as the African, Caribbean and Pacific states are able to benefit fully from the single market. The new Loméconvention contains positive arrangements for 1992 on commodities that uphold traditional commitments and meet our single market objectives.
    Mr. Williams: I accept the Minister's concern about this matter, but how does she explain that the DG-I study seems to concentrate on Asia and Latin America while excluding some of the poorest Commonwealth areas in the Pacific, the Caribbean and Africa? Why are we not making stronger representations for their inclusion?
    Mrs. Chalker: I know that it is complicated, but the detail is as follows: DG-I is the directorate general of the Community, which looks after Asia and Latin America. Commissioner Marin, who looks after African, Caribbean
    892
    and Pacific countries, heads up DG-VIII, which is a separate division. That also takes account of the assistance necessary for those countries under Lomé4.
    Mr. Lester: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what progress is being made on abolishing European Community quotas for Caribbean rum?
    Mrs. Chalker: The United Kingdom secured an agreement at the last Lomé round, which will permit all Caribbean exports to the Community to come forward. In addition, national quotas are being phased out and we have a binding commitment after that, I think in 1995, to end Community quotas on rum as well. It was the United Kingdom action that achieved the start to the end of quotas on rum.
    Sir David Steel: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the vast bulk of African debt is owed to European Community countries. Since 1992 will mean a leap forward in our prosperity in Europe, does she agree that that would be the time to take a collective initiative in the European Community to relieve African debt?
    Mrs. Chalker: I expect that the Commissioner concerned will be putting a recommendation to the EC development committee at the end of May, when we shall consider it.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister accept that the countries that will be harmed most by the advent of 1992 are those which are most vulnerable—especially Mozambique and Ethiopia? Why has she not answered the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mrs. Williams) and said that she and her colleagues will carry out a comprehensive review to identify which countries will be harmed by 1992 and what should be done to help them?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Overseas Development Institute inquiry reckons that, on balance, there will not be difficulties. We are, of course, totally prepared to look at the effect on Mozambique and Ethiopia and other poor countries. In the light of our considerable help to them, we are greatly aware of what needs to be done. There is no point in expecting trouble when the harmonisation of standards will mean that those countries that gain most through trade and not from aid will have just one hurdle to overcome instead of 12.
    Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take it later.

London March (Disorder)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the disorder in central London last Saturday.
It is with a sense of outrage that I make this statement today and I am sure that that outrage is shared by all hon. Members. Hon Members will have seen on television some of the acts of criminal violence and viciousness which occurred and which no decent person could fail to condemn—condemn without reservation.
At the end of the day's events, 339 people had been arrested for public order and other criminal offences, including riot, affray and criminal damage. Some 374 officers of the 2,198 on duty were injured, of whom 58 required hospital treatment. Several officers were knocked unconscious, others received head injuries, and one officer sustained a fractured jaw and is still in hospital and has either now had or is about to have an operation. Eighty-six members of the public have reported injuries. Some of those people were in no way concerned in the demonstration but were bystanders who were attacked by the mob. Forty police horses were used and 20 were injured. There have been about 250 reports of damage to property, but the full extent of it has yet to be assessed.
I shall now turn to the day's events. At about noon the demonstrators wishing to take part in the march began to assembly at Kennington park, and at 1 o'clock they set off. More or less at the outset a group tried to take over the head of the march, but the police and stewards prevented them. However, as the march went up Whitehall, small groups began to leave the main body and congregate opposite the entrance to Downing street. A group sat down, partly obstructing the remainder of the march and encouraging others to do so. Most of the marchers carried on. Another group attempted to pull down the barriers and break the police line. Some arrests were made and further officers were called up in support, but the troublemakers refused to move on and, increasingly, the police line came under violent attack from missiles.
Meanwhile, the remainder of the march had been halted at the bottom of Whitehall and a previously agreed diversion was set up which sent the march up Bridge street, Victoria embankment and Northumberland avenue. The police had by then brought in mounted officers to help move the hard core of troublemakers up Whitehall and into Trafalgar square, and when this was achieved, a cordon was set up on the junction of Whitehall and Trafalgar square. This cordon, however, came under severe attack from people in the square.
At 4.40 pm the rally ended and most of those assembled dispersed peacefully, but about 3,000 troublemakers remained behind, the hard core having assembled near the building site at the corner of Northumberland avenue. Scaffolding was dismantled and used as missiles. As police officers cleared demonstrators from the site, the site huts were set alight. South Africa house nearby was attacked, a window broken and a small fire started. Officers protecting the front of the embassy came under severe attack. Mounted officers were brought in to help; and using officers with protective clothing and mounted officers, the police set about dispersing the troublemakers, who split up into four groups, each of which then went on
894
the rampage, looting shops and causing damage to property and vehicles—even attacking a car with people inside. It was not until later in the evening that they finally dispersed.
All responsible Members of the House and the country at large will wish to condemn unreservedly the disgraceful criminal behaviour which occurred. All responsible members of society will wish to join me in paying tribute to the police for the courage and restraint which they showed in dealing with some of the most ferocious violence we have ever seen on the streets of London. I should also like to thank the ambulance and fire services for the part that they played during and in the aftermath of the disorders.
The police are now going to make every effort to bring to justice those who committed these appalling crimes. A team of 100 officers has been set up to take charge of this major criminal investigation. There is plenty of evidence available, in the form of photographs and film, to enable those responsible to be identified, and I hope that all sections of the press and television will co-operate to the full with the police investigation.
I have called for a full report from the Commissioner on the day's events and he will be reviewing what lessons are to be learnt from what occurred.
The right of peaceful demonstration is one which I will always defend, but the scenes in our capital city on Saturday had nothing whatsoever to do with peaceful demonstration. Clearly, a large number of people set off bent on violence. There can be no justification whatsoever for the savage and barbaric acts that millions saw on their television screens—not just in Britain but also, sadly, round the world. A clear message must go from this House that those responsible should be brought to justice.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Labour party condemns, without reservation or qualification, the violence which took place in and around Trafalgar square last Saturday. In a democratic society, no cause can justify such conduct. It is literally intolerable.
May I offer the sympathy of Opposition Members to those police officers who were injured while trying to perform the near-impossible task of containing such a large number of rioters. We also offer our sympathy to the innocent civilians who were the inevitable victims of the riot. Of course we are grateful to the police and the ambulance and fire services for the duties which they performed.
May we offer our support to those parts of the Prime Minister's Sunday statement, echoed by the Home Secretary today, which defended the right of a free people to demonstrate peaceably? We endorse her view that a way must be found of ensuring that peaceful demonstrations are not hijacked by a lawless minority.
Of course we welcome the criminal investigation that has been set up, and I echo the Home Secretary's hope that it will be afforded every possible assistance.
Has the Home Secretary considered a fuller inquiry of the sort which the Prime Minister seemed to be suggesting on television yesterday evening? Such an inquiry could examine every aspect of the disturbance from the strategy for its containment to the individuals and organisations responsible for the riots. It is inconceivable that violence on such a scale was spontaneous. On Saturday, I called for exemplary sentences for those who were convicted of

895
committing criminal acts. May I today emphasise the importance—perhaps the greater importance—of prosecuting those who planned and organised the mayhem?
I understand that journalists have given the Home Secretary—as they have given me—copies of material circulated during Saturday's demonstration by an organisation advocating violence for violence's sake. In its broadsheet, that organisation wrote:
"Scraps with cops may not stop the poll tax but … who needs an excuse for a fight with the bill?"
That organisation can be identified. It seems to me that it has certainly committed an indictable offence which should result in immediate prosecution.
I conclude as I began, by reiterating what I know to be the spirit of the whole House. All democrats will combine in demanding the rooting out of the threat to our free society which was perpetrated by individuals and organisations who were responsible for the disgraceful scenes and conduct in the capital last Saturday.
Mr. Waddington: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's condemnation of the violence, for his remarks about the part played by the police and for his sympathy for the police and civilians who were injured. I am also grateful for his thanks to the police and the ambulance and fire services. There will be two inquiries: criminal investigation and an inquiry carried out by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to see what lessons can be learnt from what occurred. There is no doubt that there were organisations bent on violence and their part in this sad affair will be thoroughly examined.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole House and the people of Britain owe a great debt of gratitude to the Metropolitan police for the way in which they defended the principle of parliamentary democracy and freedom last Saturday? We wish the police officers who have been injured a speedy recovery, especially those who remain in hospital. Does he further agree that when the inquiries are undertaken they should include an investigation into the identity of the anti-poll tax lobby, what affiliation it has with other political groups, how it is funded, how it organised the motorcade of young people into London last Saturday, why so many young people came, whether some of them were paid and what were the links with the disorder that subsequently occurred that evening?
Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the part played by the police and for his wishes for a speedy recovery to those officers who were injured. My hon. Friend asks who was behind the anti-poll tax demonstration. I gather that the part played by Militant is well known and that something over 500 buses were used to bring people into the centre of London—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?"] People have a right to demonstrate peacefully and, as I have already said, I firmly stand for that right, but I hope that the organisers of such demonstrations will remember the appalling burdens that they place on the police who have better things to do, the inconvenience—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary.
Mr. Waddington: We now know from the events on Saturday the danger that they cause to ordinary citizens, the likelihood of criminal elements attaching themselves to
896
those demonstration as an excuse for violence and the appalling damage that this sort of incident does to our reputation abroad.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, express our outright condemnation of this predetermined violence, which puts in peril freedom of assembly and expression in this country? Those who foster violence are the enemies of our society. We are deeply sympathetic to not only the police, who faced great personal danger, but the innocent members of the public who were injured, and we are grateful for the courage shown by many people in terrifying circumstances. Will the inquiries consider the apparently large discrepancies between the number of demonstrators claimed by the police and the number claimed by the organisers? How many were present and what agreements were reached with the police under the Public Order Act 1986 before the holding of the meetings?
Mr. Waddington: Once again, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expression of sympathy for the police and members of the public who suffered injury. He is right to join us all in condemning the violence. I referred to an inquiry that will be carried out by the Commissioner to see what lessons can be learnt from what occurred.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many people were involved in the demonstration. I gather that the organisers issued some quite extraordinary figures, and that they did so before the march began, but I am told by the police that the figure is more than 40,000. The organisers of the march were in touch with the police. After this vicious element —"element" is perhaps the wrong word, because it suggests only a few, when it could have been as many as 3,000—started attacking the police in Whitehall, the police managed to get the rest of the march turned round at the bottom of Whitehall and showed commendable presence of mind in so doing.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is it my right hon. and learned Friend's experience that if open meetings of crowds of peole are exhorted to break the law it inevitably ends in violence? Does he expect those who so exhorted that crowd on Saturday to be condemned by the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Waddington: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. It does not help if hon. Members exhort peole to break the law. Do they expect those whom they seek to influence to draw a neat distinction between one sort of law-breaking and another? Do they expect the people whom they seek to influence to break the tax not to be encouraged to break policemen's heads? Hon. Members —it is estimated that up to 30 of them are involved—who have been exhorting people to break the law should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Tony Benn rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Benn.
Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for saying in his opening remarks that the whole House would share his view that violence was wrong. No hon. Member of this House advocates, supports or condones violence. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his statement, that view was shared by the organisers of the demonstration who throughout co-operated fully with the police. In Glasgow, where the same organisation planned

897
the same sort of demonstration, there was no violence. I ask the Home Secretary to accept that peaceful protest has long extended to conscientious objection, of which the suffragettes were some of the most notable examples. Peaceful conscientious objection is absolutely legitimate.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there should be a public inquiry, headed by a High Court judge, which could hear the evidence of those who were present? Will he bear it in mind that, after his predecessor had made a similar statement at the time of Wapping, the Northamptonshire police produced a report that included criticism of the Metropolitan police? That inquiry was commissioned by the Government of the day. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that British history shows that despair and a sense of social injustice have often lain at the roots of civil disturbance, and that the Government have a heavy responsibility for that?
Mr. Waddington: Again, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in so far as he condemns violence, but he seems to be very selective on the question of which laws people should obey and which laws they are exempted from obeying. I see no parallel between the present situation and the suffragettes. I cannot remember the right hon. Gentleman condemning the appalling violence at Wapping and Orgreave.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Metropolitan police are extremely grateful for his generous tribute, which was echoed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)? Does he agree that they acted efficiently and courageously and that the terrible toll of 374 officers and 20 horses injured reflects probably the worst violence that we have seen this century? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House, the public and the police that every effort will be made from the film and videotape recordings of this affair to identify those who are responsible and to prosecute them quickly with the full rigour of the law? While my right hon. and learned Friend is about it, will he ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to take a close look at one of the fringe organisations known, I believe, as Class War, a representative of which on radio today, referring to Saturday, said, "We had a wonderful day"?
Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is entirely right that the police acted efficiently and courageously. All of us are unreserved in our admiration for them. I assure my hon. Friend that every effort will be made to identify the criminals involved. A great deal of film is already available, and I hope that all those who have other film in their possession will make it available to the police. I shall certainly follow up my hon. Friend's suggestion and see what information we have about the people behind Class War.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Home Secretary agree that if the analysis that is being made of this very serious event in the metropolis this weekend is at the level that it was caused by a letter from 30 Members of Parliament, it is no wonder that the crime rate is growing so high and there is violence in prisons, because we are not facing up to the causes in our society and what it is all about? Cheap political speeches on
898
television do nothing for someone like me who is concerned about this situation. One says in one's drawing room, "Oh, my God, they will politicise anything." Would it not be better to have a full inquiry and find out what motivates the people who were involved, from where they get their money and what sort of education they have had —[Interruption.]—because they are not the people who vote for my hon. Friends or me— Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Rees.
Mr. Rees: It is time that we found out what is going wrong in a society in which law and order are breaking down.
Mr. Waddington: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that those whom I saw yesterday afternoon were certainly not Tory voters—
Hon. Members: Thatcher's children.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House is concerned about this matter. I hope that we shall not make it a party political issue.
Mr. Waddington: I do not think that it is very helpful, after criminal wickedness of this sort, to talk about the need for an investigation into the causes of violence. I think that one can identify quite easily the cause of the violence in this case—sheer wickedness.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: May I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) just said? There can never be too many tributes to the police for the courage that they show in doing their duty in the face of such savagery. What really matters is that those responsible should be brought swiftly to justice. Can my right hon. and learned Friand assure me that he expects the full collaboration of the television authorities and everybody else in making the necessary evidence fully available to him?
Mr. Waddington: I certainly hope that they will do so. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that it is important that those who committed these wicked acts should be brought to justice as soon as possible.
Mr. Dick Douglas: In his wide-ranging inquiry, will the Home Secretary take the trouble to contact the Strathclyde police? Will he compare the events in London with the peaceful rally that was held in Glasgow and remember that we in Scotland have been demonstrating peacefully against the poll tax for three years? I have been demonstrating in that city for 40 years, and Saturday's rally was the best and most peaceful that I have attended over that long period.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman compare and contrast the media coverage given to the events in London with that given to the peaceful rally in Glasgow and remember that we have suffered the poll tax for a year now—not in silence? Will he ask the Prime Minister, who is sitting beside him, who she has the stomach to fight, now that she is fighting her own Back-Benchers, her own Government and the people of Scotland? I will tell her, through the Home Secretary: we will not bend the knee to her poll tax; we will not bend the knee to her state-sponsored violence against the poorer sections of the population. We will demonstrate peacefully—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.
Mr. Douglas: I abhor attacks on the peace and I abhor violence. I have fought against violence all my life, but I have also fought against injustice to the poorer sections of the population.
Mr. Waddington: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right that rallies and demonstrations can take place peacefully. One reason why sometimes rallies do not take place peacefully is the inflammatory language used by some people which is calculated to lead certain elements in society to use violence. That is why it is important that all those involved in such demonstrations should realise how irresponsible it is to urge people to defy the law. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that there was little media coverage of a demonstration that passed off without incident, but it is hardly surprising, in view of the terrible events that took place in London, that the media focused on those events.
Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend mark the contrast between the wise and responsible words of the shadow Home Secretary this afternoon and the manifest failure of a large number of Labour Members to endorse those words?
Mr. Waddington: I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. I only criticised the shadow Home Secretary when he asked us at this juncture of all junctures to start analysing the causes of crime. I certainly could not agree with that.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that the vast majority of people on that demonstration were there to demonstrate peacefully and that the organisers were assured in their determination that the demonstration would be peaceful? Is it not also a fact that extremists on the street need extremists in government and that with the Prime Minister, who is sitting next to the Home Secretary, the extremists in our society have all the cause and justification that they need?
Mr. Waddington: That is just the sort of violent language that leads to violence in the streets.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in April 1981, in the Brixton disorders, 143 policemen were injured when 7,300 were deployed, while on Saturday 370 were injured when only 2,000 were employed? Does not that suggest that the low-profile policing which the march organisers wanted failed? Will he give an undertaking that never again will the capital city be subjected to under-policing on an occasion of such sensitivity?
Mr. Waddington: It is impossible to say that there was under-policing. A vast number of police officers were on duty and when the trouble broke out even more were called to the scene. The truth of the matter is that in a civilised society we expect the citizens of this country to behave in a civilised manner. On this occasion, it was not a few, but 3,000 or so, members of our society who behaved in a most disgraceful, criminal and uncivilised fashion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take account of the subsequent business. We have another important statement after this and this is a day in which, even if I were
900
to put a limit of five minutes on speeches, not every hon. Member would be called. I will allow three more questions from each side of the House and then we must move on.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Home Secretary accept from me and on behalf of the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation that arson and looting and the earlier provocation and violence of the anarchist elements are unreservedly and utterly condemned? However, will the Home Secretary's inquiry take evidence from those News of the World and Mail on Sunday journalists who were injured in police baton charges? Will it take evidence from Mr. Ian Katz of The Sunday Correspondent who described the tactics of senior officers in Whitehall as turning a fracas into a full-scale battle through their ill-considered charges?
Will it take evidence from the Secretary of State for the Environment who might explain why, on Monday last week, when we asked for that march to be redirected from Trafalgar square to Hyde Park because we knew there would be upwards of 100,000 people in London, we were told that that was impossible because we had not given seven days' written notice? Finally, will he tell his right hon. Friend sitting next to him—the Prime Minister—that if she and her Back-Benchers want to take demonstrations off the streets of London, they should call a general election and let the people decide on the poll tax"
Mr. Waddington: Here we go again—the same sort of weasel words as we heard at the time of Orgreave and Wapping. That was a condemnation of violence swiftly followed by a backhand way of excusing those who perpetrated the violence.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I unreservedly welcome the message by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook, (Mr. Hattersley), and the sincerity with which it was given on behalf of a great democratic party. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best message to give the people of Britain would be if all parties in the House would make it abundantly clear that they would eject from their membership any Member who advocated law-breaking or encouraged others to do so?
Mr. Waddington: We have been waiting for a long time for such a condemnation from the Leader of the Opposition, but no condemnation comes. He has in his ranks on the Opposition Benches 30 hon. Members who have been encouraging people to break the law. He should grow up and behave like a responsible citizen.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary accept that the organisers of the march, and I was there to witness it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—did everything possible to ensure that there was a large and peaceful demonstration? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and call for an open public inquiry into all the events of last Saturday? If he does not do that, the question of who caused the violence and the policing tactics—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I thought that the purpose of an inquiry was to try to find the causes of something. Conservative Members appear to have made up their minds already.
I ask the Home Secretary also to pass on to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that the basic cause of the large

901
demonstration on Saturday and all the other demonstrations is the manifestly absurd, unjust and mediaeval tax known as the poll tax and that demonstrations—peaceful demonstrations—will continue. The issue will not go away until the poll tax is removed.
Mr. Waddington: I did not think that we would have to wait all that long for it—not a word of condemnation of the violence came from the hon. Gentleman, yet he must have seen the vicious scenes on television. When he talks about an unjust tax, he must realise that he is encouraging violence of that sort.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The bigger the demonstration the easier it is for violent elements to infiltrate it and the greater the danger that peaceful bystanders and those thinking that they are taking part in a peaceful demonstration will get hurt. Will my right hon. and learned Friend now consider whether we should reintroduce into our law a provision similar to the Riot Act so that people who are caught up in such circumstances and are likely to get hurt will have proper notice that they will be participating in a criminal enterprise unless they depart immediately?
Mr. Waddington: I doubt very much whether attempting to read the Riot Act would have had any effect on the events on Saturday, when a section of the crowd seemed determined to cause trouble and certainly would not have heard a single word of the Riot Act if it had been read to them.
Mr. George Galloway: I was a speaker at the rally in Trafalgar square on Saturday and an eye-witness to the appalling scenes that the House is now discussing. My views on those scenes were widely quoted in yesterday's newspapers. I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that and that I need not repeat them today.
The Government would be doing themselves and the country an injustice if they attempted to steamroller the fundamental causes of the rising tide of anger in the country by hiding behind the wholly specious equation of someone peacefully withholding his tax with someone smashing masonry over a policeman's head. I inform the Home Secretary—I do not expect him publicly to acknowledge it, but I hope that the Government are privately taking it on board—that if the Government do not change course on the poll tax, it will be a long hot summer.
Mr. Waddington: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the organisers of the
902
march were people who intended peacefully to withhold their tax. He knows perfectly well that the organisers of the march have been urging others to break the law, which is a very different matter. The hon. Gentleman's latter remarks do him no credit at all because they could easily be interpreted by people outside the House as an incitement to violence.
Mr. John Bowis: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Londoners accept their long history of providing a venue for peaceful demonstration, but that when such demonstrations are manipulated out of control, it is London's police, London's hospitals, London's shops and London's citizens who suffer? Will he ensure that not only the people who were involved in the violence on the streets, but the inciters and godfathers who stand behind them, are brought to book?
Mr. Waddington: I assure my hon. Friend that the police will make every effort to do so.
Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that, on reflection, the Home Secretary will agree that Saturday's terrible events are best discussed in a spirit of calmness. In that mood and spirit, may I ask him what amounts to almost a technical question? I, at least, had not heard of the application to move the demonstration from Trafalgar square to Hyde park. Will one of the inquiries examine whether such an application was made, and if it was, will one of the inquiries examine why it was refused and whether it was wise to refuse it?
Mr. Waddington: I shall certainly look at that matter. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he asked a very restrained question and that I answered in very temperate language. However, when other hon. Members make remarks that could be interpreted as an incitement to violence, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to remain silent.
Mr. Speaker: We have a further statement. I call the Home Secretary.
Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the hope of conducting the debate in the responsible way that is my habit, I asked the Home Secretary a specific question and I believe that the House is entitled to a specific answer. It concerns the proposed movement of the venue from Trafalgar square to Hyde park. Will that or will that not be the subject of part of the inquiry?
Mr. Waddington: I thought that I had answered that, but if I did not, I am sorry. Obviously, I shall look into the matter. As I understand it, the organisers of the march agreed the venue and the route with the police.

Strangeways Prison
4.11 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the serious violence in Manchester prison.
At about 11 am yesterday, some 300 prisoners attending a service in the chapel attacked the staff present and took keys from them, and the staff were then forced to withdraw. The prisoners broke out of the roof of the chapel and gained access to the main prison, where a large number of inmates had been unlocked from cells to be served with their midday meal. These joined the chapel rioters, and violence spread quickly to the remand wing. Staff then had to be withdrawn from all the living areas in the prison, for their own safety. Some 120 prisoners in the hospital, who were taking exercise at the time, were, however, secured and took no part in the disturbance.
Meanwhile, prisoners in the living area began to destroy the roof and internal fittings. Staff were forced back away from the buildings by volleys of slates and other missiles, and fires were lit inside the prison. The emergency services were quickly in attendance and police were deployed outside the prison. No prisoners escaped. During the afternoon about 500 prisoners gave themselves up and during the evening and night more surrendered.
My latest information is that some 119 prisoners have yet to surrender, while 69 prisoners remain in the hospital and other parts of the prison, safe and under control. Prison officers regained control of the remand wings of the prison this morning. Some 1,363 prisoners have been sent to other prisons, and 95 are in police cells, as a result of most remarkable work by the prison service and the police.
There have been widespread but conflicting stories from surrendering prisoners about the violence which took place in the early afternoon and claims that a number of prisoners are dead. It has not been possible to confirm these stories and, to date, no bodies have been discovered, but the possibility that fatalities have occurred cannot be ruled out. The general picture is of prisoners indulging in violence on other prisoners, the full consequences of which remain to be discovered.
Nine of the surrendering prisoners claim to have been forcibly injected with drugs, and eight admit to having taken drugs voluntarily. Twenty-four prisoners are in outside hospitals, one with serious head injuries and one with a punctured lung. None is considered now to be in danger. I say again that those injuries seem to be the result of violence meted out by prisoner on prisoner. Twelve prison officers were injured and had to be taken to hospital. They have all been released.
I pay tribute to the commendable bravery shown by the prison officers, who were faced with a fierce and savage onslaught, and to the courageous leadership of the governor and his senior staff. I also express our gratitude to the police for their swift response and their help later in moving prisoners from the gaol. I thank also the fire service and the ambulance service for their help.
This is clearly a dreadful incident, all the more serious in the light of all that we have been trying to do to reduce the pressures on the prison system and to improve conditions.
The prison population nationally is now more than 2,100 lower than at the same time last year, and total
904
expenditure on the prison service has risen by 20 per cent. in real terms in the past 12 months. As the House knows, we are engaged in a policy designed to keep out of prison those who do not need to be there, a programme of refurbishment of existing establishments, and a building programme, in which eight of the 28 prisons in the programme have already been completed. By 1992–93, we shall have provided more than 10,000 new prison places and, but for incidents like this, overcroding would have been a thing of the past.
Judge Stephen Tumim, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, wrote in his recent report on Manchester prison published last week:
"life at Manchester is a great deal nearer what it should be, both for staff and inmates, than it was some two years ago", and he commended the governor and staff for the improvements that they were achieving. He concluded his report by saying:
"There was much more to praise than to decry in an establishment clearly going in the right direction and with an optimistic momentum".
Sadly, the short-term consequences of this incident will be to worsen conditions elsewhere just when real improvements were flowing from the combined effects of our policies on criminal justice and the prison building programme.
By a cruel irony, negotiations have only recently been concluded with Manchester city council for the purchase of land for a major redevelopment of the prison. A new hospital was opened last year and the first 28 cells have been fitted with integral sanitation as part of a rolling programme. The population of the prison has dropped significantly since mid-1988. Last year, the number of prisoners held three to a cell had fallen by over 300 to only 123 out of the total population of over 1,600.
Clearly, there will have to be a thorough inquiry into this extremely serious incident. Because the incident is not yet concluded, I do not believe that the precise nature of the inquiry or who should lead it should be determined now, but 1 will inform the House as soon as I have reached a decision.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I first offer our sympathy to the prison officers, police officers and firemen who were injured during the Strangeways riot, and congratulate those public services on the invariable bravery and occasional heroism with which they discharged their duties yesterday?
It is our long-standing belief that the recurring crisis in our prisons is the consequence of overcrowding, which results from too many custodial sentences and too little punishment within the community. As the Government, in their criminal justice White Paper, belatedly accepted that view, I shall do no more than set out that principle as the mutually agreed background to the Strangeways disturbance. My detailed questions concern prison conditions, available manpower and preparedness—about none of which the Home Secretary thought it wise to inform the House in his statement.
Much was made at the weekend, and again today, of the chief inspector of prisons' report, which complimented the staff of Strangeways on their dedication. I am happy to repeat that compliment, but does the Home Secretary acknowledge that the same report notes that the treatment of prisoners
"leaves much to be desired"
and describes the prison's buildings as "awful"?

905
Eighty-two of the cells that the Victorians intended for single habitation are each occupied by three prisoners, and 296 single habitation cells are each occupied by two prisoners. Prisoners are confined to their cells for all but 11 hours each week, and are allowed only one shower and one change of clothing a week. On many occasions last year, not even that was possible. The cell blocks have no modern sanitation, and even men living three to a cell are required to slop out. If we treat men like animals, we ought not to be surprised if they behave like animals.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that there were 30 fewer prison officers on duty yesterday than would have been the case had new staffing levels not been imposed on prisons by the Home Office after the "fresh start" policy came into operation? How many officers were on duty yesterday? Does the Home Secretary regard that number, whatever it was, as adequate in the light of warnings of a disturbance that I understand the Home Office received?
Were messages passed to the governor warning that a major demonstration was likely to take place at the weekend? If so, what action was taken? Were demonstrators on the roof earlier last week? If so, did not the Home Office regard that a sign of trouble to come?
Were prisoners due to be taken to court on Tuesday kept in the prison because of the fear of disturbances? If so, why did not the Home Office regard that as an indication of possible future disturbances? Is it not a fact that the Home Office—not the governor or his staff—failed hopelessly in its management of the prison and neglected its duty to prepare for disturbances that it should have anticipated? Its failures are the direct responsibility of the Home Secretary and of his inadequate policies for staffing prisons and for the conditions within them.
Mr. Waddington: I do find it extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) addresses those remarks to me without including a word of condemnation of the prisoners who have done immense damage, and thereby set back the work of improving the prison estate, and who indulged in an orgy of violence against their fellow inmates. The right hon. Gentleman might have addressed his mind to those aspects just for one moment.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to congratulate prison officers on their bravery and to echo my own sentiments, but I am not sure that he is entitled to talk about prison overcrowding when the Government of which he was a member did not lift a finger to do anything about it. The right hon. Gentleman is way off the mark when he talks as though our criminal justice White Paper dealt only with new thinking and not with the development of ideas that had been put into practice in previous years.
The range of non-custodial sentences has greatly increased in recent years. As a consequence, we greatly increased also staffing of the probation service, which now has 1,200 more probation officers than in 1979. Our White Paper was the culmination, not the start, of a policy that has resulted in probably the best community service regimes in the world. Incidentally, it has helped to bring about a large reduction in the prison population in the past two years.
What absolute nonsense it is to talk about us addressing ourselves to the criminal justice system just now, when
906
back in 1982 we put through the House the Criminal Justice Act, which had a dramatic effect on the number of young people given custodial sentences.
I agree that the prison leaves much to be desired. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, much of our prison estate is composed of prisons built in the 19th century. I have already said that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues never addressed that problem when they were in office.
There were 10 prison officers on duty that morning in the chapel, and I gather that that is the normal number of officers to be on duty. The right hon. Gentleman made remarks about the regime for prisoners in Strangeways. In recent times, that regime has been greatly improved. In the week ending 17 March, the average weekly hours of activity for inmates in Workers Educational Association courses, and physical education was 22·73 hours for convicted adults, 10·61 hours for remands and 12·35 hours for convicted young offenders. For the equivalent week a year ago, the figures were 12·79, 5·28 and 9·19 hours respectively.
It is nonsense to paint a picture of no progress being made in Strangeways. It is because progress has been made that Judge Tumim was able to make his remarks in his recent report.
I know of no warning given to the prison staff of trouble. Two prisoners went up on the roof during last week, but they were not accompanied or encouraged by any of the other inmates, and no doubt the judgment made was that it was a minor demonstration by two prisoners. That was the end of it.
Mr. Robert Litherland: But surely the Home Secretary and his predecessors must have been made aware by the Prison Officers Association that Strangeways prison was a powder keg that could explode at any time. After this bitter and tragic experience, does he now agree that the association has been proved right and that the Home Office is now accused of criminal negligence? The Government's policy on prisons, like Strangeways, is now in ruins.
Mr. Waddington: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that they simply to not fit the facts. They do not fit with the improvements in the regime at Strangeways during recent times. If the hon. Gentleman is addressing his remarks to the allocation of staffing, I should say that there has been no difficulty in posting sufficient staff to Manchester. All the framework agreement staff required for a reduction in prison officers' hours for the beginning of this month have already been posted to Manchester. Further staff are due to be posted in the next 12 months.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we really must do something about such Victorian prisons? Does he not feel that it is inhuman to keep three prisoners cooped up in a cell all day? Although I admit that the Government are doing a great deal, we must give an even higher priority to getting rid of those old prisons. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is very sad that such a tragic situation has arisen under a governor who has done so much in his three years of office?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that there is any truth in the press reports that the scenes of

907
violence we saw on Saturday, which must have been seen on the television screens in that prison, helped to spark off some of the violence there?
Mr. Waddington: I do not honestly know the answer to the last question, but it is certainly true that those who indulge in irresponsible violence may well encourage others to do so, particularly if what they do appears on television. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Government have embarked on the largest prison building programme this century. Of a total of 28 prisons in the programme, eight are already open, 14 are at various stages of design and construction, and it is planned for building to commence on another two between 1991 and 1993. That leaves a balance of four prisons, the location and commencement date for construction of which has yet to be decided.
The sadness of it all is that last autumn we were able to announce some diversion of resources from new prison building to refurbishment. I attach the greatest importance to a programme to get rid of slopping out as soon as possible, but when such an event as this takes place, it makes it much more difficult to achieve that to which we have bent all our efforts.
It is an absolute tragedy that this should have occurred now, because we were getting rid of overcrowding, as a result of a combination of fewer people being sent to prison and more prisons being built. At the same time, we were embarked on a big programme of refurbishment. We shall now have to do some new thinking, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that we still attach a great deal of importance to improving this country's prison estate.
Mr. Alfred Morris: How long does the Home Secretary expect the prison to be out of action, or largely out of action? What extra help is being given to the prisons to which prisoners from Strangeways have been evacuated? What is happening to those prisoners who were mentally ill and inappropriately accommodated at Strangeways? What additional help is going to the hospitals now trying to cope with those who were injured in the violence? When does the Home Secretary expect to make a further statement about the reports of deaths during this tragic and violent weekend?
Mr. Waddington: Obviously, I shall have to sum up the position when events develop. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to say more than that now. I said in my statement that the police and prison officers had worked valiantly overnight to move a large number of prisoners to different establishments up and down the country. I was amazed to see the scale of the task which they had set themselves and the amazing way in which they had achieved the movement of such a large number of people.
I cannot be expected to say now exactly where all the people are, whether they should remain there or whether they should be moved to other establishments once the emergency has been sorted out. The fairest thing I can suggest is for the right hon. Gentleman to write to me and, if particular cases worry him, I shall ensure that he is kept informed about them as much as possible.
Mr. David Sumberg: As my constituency is only two miles up the road from Strangeways, may I say how appalled my constituents will be that, in this delicate and dangerous situation, the shadow Home Secretary
908
should seek to make a political issue of the matter? I join my right hon. and learned Friend in paying tribute to the courage of the police and prison officers who have ensured that the matter has been kept entirely within the prison and not a single prisoner has escaped.
Mr. Waddigton: I am grateful to my hon. friend for his remarks. He is right to congratulate both the prison officers and the police on the work that they have done.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary accept that the answer which he gave his hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, suggesting that new thinking would be necessary, is right and welcome? Does he also accept that the brutalising vengengefulness displayed this weekend, and the suicidal despair in other prisons, shows that this event is part of a pattern of behaviour in Victorian prisons in inner cities, and that we simply must accelerate the penal reform to which he and his colleagues have set their minds? Does he also accept that he must undertake to move that reform into a higher gear?
Mr. Waddington: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was accusing us, or could accuse us, of having done nothing. We inherited a dilapidated prison estate on which not a penny had been spent for many years, and we embarked on this massive prison-building programme. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of our criminal justice reforms. I hope that a Criminal Justice Bill may be in the programme for the next Session, but that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although my constituents have considerable sympathy for the working conditions of prison officers and for remand prisoners who may be held for lengthy periods while unconvicted, they have scant sympathy for convicted prisoners who are, by and large, in prison because of their own actions? Bearing in mind the improvements that we have made in the prison in recent years, will my right hon. and learned friend assure us that prisoners who are identified as having taken part in the riot will be properly punished and disciplined; and will he ensure that sympathy for the conditions will not outweigh proper condemnation of the prisoner's actions?
Mr. Waddington: I think it is important to condemn their action. That is why I took up this matter with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). This is not a case of prisoners going on the rampage and destroying their own property; it is a case of prisoners going on the rampage and attacking fellow prisoners. The full history of this matter has yet to be disclosed, but clearly, serious offences have been committed. I agree with my hon. Friend that they must all be investigated and that the guilty people must be brought to justice.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: While one recognises all the difficulties of yesterday, will the Home Secretary recognise the anguish of many of the families of people who were in the prison? A 17-year-old constituent of mine was in the prison, and his parents were unable to obtain any information about him. Can the Minister assure the House that all the families of people who have been moved will know where they have been moved to, and that every

909
effort will be made to ensure that families are put out of their anguish, especially in view of the concern caused by the unconfirmed rumours of deaths in the prison?
Mr. Waddington: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is right, in the sense that we do not want people to be unnecessarily anxious. We shall give as much information as we can as quickly as possible.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt appreciate Conservative Members' condemnation of the monstrous behaviour of the prisoners. Does he agree that one of the major problems in any prison is the segregation of sexual offenders from those who want to assault them and beat them up? Can he confirm this morning's press reports that many of the victims of the assault were sexual offenders who were under protection under rule 43?
Mr. Waddington: I cannot confirm that now.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: While recognising the great difficulties that there must have been arranging transfers to other prisons, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that a prison such as Armley in Leeds, which is already overcrowded and in which there have been many suicides in recent years, is equipped to receive the reported 100 prisoners who have been transferred there? Has he arranged for more prison officers to cope with the problem?
Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that it has been quite difficult to keep up with events over the past 24 hours. I do not have an up-to-date list of where the prisoners who have been moved have gone. As I told the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), we shall give as much information as we can as soon as possible, and we shall try to accommodate prisoners where there is room for them and make the best possible arrangements in the difficult circumstances that have arisen.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. and learned Friend said in his opening remarks that this incident would worsen conditions elsewhere. We have an exceptionally well run prison in Lancaster with high morale. When I rang it this morning, I was told that it has had no prisoners sent from Strangeways. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do his best to ensure that this excellent prison is not disrupted and mayhem created by the transfer of prisoners from Strangeways, who would undo the work of decades?
Mr. Waddington: Obviously I do not want to see the work of any prison disrupted as a result of this, but accommodation has to be found for these prisoners. If my hon. Friend will keep in touch with me, I shall do my best to keep her up to date. I do not know how many prisoners, if any, have gone to Lancaster.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, I have to say to the House that we have a very heavy day ahead of us and as the Home Secretary has said, a further report will be made on this matter. I will allow three more questions from each side and then I am afraid we must move on.
Mr. Ken Eastham: May I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the main theme that seems to be coming through—that of overcrowding? He will know that, from time to time, we write to his Department about prisoners on remand who are often not guilty but awaiting trial. Some of them wait for weeks and sometimes months, and that is one of the reasons for the grave overcrowding. Will the Home Secretary do all in his power to bring about a speedier trials procedure?
We understand that millions of pounds' worth of damage has been caused to buildings, and that most of the prison will be out of commission for many months. The prison is located in the central area of Manchester, which is highly congested. Is it not time to reconsider relocating Strangeways away from that locality and getting rid once and for all of this Victorian pigsty?
Mr. Waddington: I have heard of the hon. Gentleman's last suggestion, but his language is rather exaggerated. One has only to read Judge Tumim's report to see the marvellous work carried out by the governor and staff, which over years has brought about significant improvements in Strangeways. I was a frequent visitor to Strangeways when I practised in Manchester, but I have not been there in the last few months.
The hon. Gentleman asked about remands in custody. He should bear in mind that in recent years there has rightly been a very big fall in the number of remands in custody. Advances such as bail information schemes have contributed to that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General reminds me that there is now a time limit in Manchester, which results in people not having to wait as long as they used to for an appearance in court. There is a time limit of 112 days between committal and trial.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, from the moment our right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) became Prime Minister, we have had a most massive building programme for prisons? It was started by Lord Whitelaw and continued by successive Home Secretaries. [Interruption.] Well, at least the Prime Minister stayed through both statements, which is more than can be said of the Leader of the Opposition. Our Government have nothing to answer for in terms of prison building and improvements, and we take no lessons from the Opposition.
I congratulate the police service in Rochdale and Oldham on dispatching officers immediately. I was watching a police parade there at the time. The special constabulary covered for the officers who left. That was a good effort. I congratulate all the police officers, the prison officers and the members of the ambulance and fire services for their efforts.
Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations and I shall, of course, pass them on, together with those that have come from all parts of the House. Obviously he is right when he says that we have no lessons to learn from the Opposition about the state of our prisons.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: May I also express my concern about the possible implications of the situation at Strangeways for other prisons, such as Wakefield prison in my constituency, which has had major

911
staffing difficulties since the introduction of the "fresh start" arrangement? Will the Home Secretary seek assurances as soon as possible that prisoners have not been transferred from Strangeways to other overcrowded establishments, and that prison officers from establishments such as that at Wakefield, which have staffing difficulties, have not been transferred to Strangeways?
Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a day or two until we can see exactly how people have been distributed. I am sure that, if he rings my office, we will keep him in touch with events and give him as much information as we can.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that, when the inquiry that he has announced takes place, there will be a thorough investigation into the role of hard drugs in this disgraceful incident? Is it not an indictment of the present system that hard drugs are available? Will he undertake to introduce any measures to curb the availability of such drugs?
Mr. Waddington: I must make one thing absolutely plain to my hon. Friend. It is by no means clear that any of the drugs that were injected got into the prison illicitly. The dispensary was broken into, and we will of course have to investigate whether all the drugs used came from there. That may well be the case.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Home Secretary consider extending his inquiry into the prision riots to Durham gaol, where, over the past two years, four prisoners have committed suicide and I believe that one is the subject of a murder charge?
Mr. Waddington: Her Majesty's inspector of prisons is presently carrying out an inquiry into suicides in prison. This is an important matter, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make any submissions to me I shall see that they are passed to Judge Tumim.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all those who wish to ask questions, but I shall certainly bear them in mind when we return to this matter. I call Sir Geoffrey Howe—
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. We have a Standing Order No. 20 application.
4.46 pm
Mr. Robert Litherland: I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the critical situation at Strangeways prison, Manchester."
For a long time, concern has been expressed by prison officers, Members of Parliament and many other interested groups that unless the conditions of overcrowding, undermanning, bad sanitation and boredom were not drastically dealt with, the prison could face a crisis which the prison officers could not contain. Time and again devoted officers have drawn attention to the matter by appealing to the Home Office to face the reality and take a realistic view of the immense pressures and stress endured at Strangeways prison.
Against their better judgment, prison officers took industrial action by refusing to allow further prisoners to enter Strangeways. That was an attempt to highlight the severe problems of overcrowding at that gaol. The prison has always had the full support and good will of those officers, who have been badly let down by the Home Office. One senior officer once told me that one day, possibly at a weekend when the prison is most vulnerable, the prisoners would come through the walls and the prison would be lost. Yesterday in the area of Strangeways prison, I saw that sad prediction becoming a reality. The prison was lost, perhaps for ever.
For the sake of every other outmoded and outdated prison in this country, let us learn from the serious events at Strangeways and recognise that, unless the elements of riot are eradicated, we may again see distressing scenes like those that we saw in Manchester yesterday.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the riot at Her Majesty's prison, Strangeways."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member said about this matter. As he knows, I have to decide whether his application comes within the Standing Order and, if so, whether I should give it precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. In this case I regret that the matter that he has raised does not fall within the requirements of the Standing Order and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. Now I will take points of order.

Points of Order
4.49 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I invite you to recall questions that were asked earlier this afternoon on overseas development. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) asked about Vietnam. In response, the Minister for Overseas Development simply referred my hon. Friend to her reply to me at the last Question Time on overseas development. Do you not agree that that was a very unsatisfactory way to answer an oral question, especially since no notice was given to my hon. Friend? Will you accept it from me that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of both replies, I shall be raising the matter on the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. Perhaps he will do as he suggests.
Ms. Joan Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the series of earth tremors in Stoke-on-Trent, including the one today, which I understand measured between 4 and 5 on the Richter scale, will you please arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House and tell us about his proposals for the monitoring of earth tremors and about the equipment that can be made available to ensure that preventive measures are taken?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady raises a matter of which, I am afraid, I have no knowledge. However, I am sure what she has said about it will have been heard by those who are responsible for making statements.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 5486/87, 5803/88, 4023/90 and 4024/90 on plant health be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before we begin this very important debate, I say again to the House that, because of the late start and the fact that a great number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in it, I shall place a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. However, I hope that that limit will be borne in mind by those who are called to speak before then. There is great pressure to participate in the debate.
  4.51 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is, in my opinion, one of the most significant measures to be brought forward by a Government in the last 20 years. It is a complex and sensitive Bill that deals with matters that are fundamental to the well-being of our society. It proposes a new and detailed system of statutory regulation of certain types of infertility treatment. If the House agrees with the view taken in another place, that regulation would extend to research involving human embryos
  On that matter, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House proposes to give the House an opportunity to vote later this month on the Floor of the House on an issue which both the Government party and the other main parties in the House regard as a matter of individual conscience. Such matters will be raised several times during the debate on the Bill.
  We all know that the subject matter of the Bill raises important legal and social issues. It also raises important scientific and medical issues. At the heart of the Bill, however, there are also important ethical questions. The House is divided as to the ethics, but in the end, it will have to make an ethical judgment on behalf of the community at large.
  As the Bill is so unlike other measures that Governments usually introduce, I am sure that our debates on it will differ from our normal debates, and will cut across the ordinary party political lines. We are all aware of the fact that people outside Parliament are, more than is usually the case, looking to the House to debate the measure calmly. I am sure that the quality of the debate on these highly sensitive and controversial matters will live up to the strong feelings of the many people who regard these matters as of the deepest significance.
  Those who have read the debates in another place will, I am sure, agree with me that they were of a high quality. I share in the tributes that have been paid to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor for the way in which he steered the debates through another place. Changes were made during those debates, which I shall describe during my speech.
  The Bill is the end product of a long period of public debate and reflection. Some people have argued that the process has been over-long. I do not share that view. We can all see, with hindsight, that the Bill has benefited from

  915
  the time that has elapsed. That can be seen from the fact that, at each stage of the discussion process, more common ground has opened up.
  There are some exceptions, particularly on the subject of research involving the human embryo. Because of its very nature, there will never be a consensus on that subject, or a solution that is acceptable to all shades of opinion. There can be no doubt, however, that there is genuine agreement about the need for statutory regulation in this highly sensitive and fast developing area of science and medicine. Many of the Bill's provisions now command, I am confident, a broad measure of public support.
  It may be helpful if I remind the House of the origins of the Bill and describe its main principles. The birth in Oldham in 1978 of the world's first baby born as a result of in vitro fertilisation, Louise Brown, ushered in a whole new era in the treatment of infertile couples. However, that birth has brought in its wake a series of complex legal and ethical issues which, it became apparent, would require to be addressed in legislation. It is not unknown for Governments of any complexion to shrink away from tackling difficult legislative problems, but this Government felt that it was a responsibility that we could not shirk.
  In 1982, we set up a committee of inquiry, chaired by Mrs. Warnock, now Baroness Warnock, the distinguished philosopher, to study all the implications that the advent of the test-tube baby technique brought in its train, including that of research involving human embryos. As a Minister, I was answerable to the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) who set up the inquiry.
  I should remind the House that, when the Government decided to ask Lady Warnock to head the committee, there was no wide public controversy or even wide public knowledge of the issues. Enoch Powell had not introduced his Bill and the newspapers had not drawn attention to the issues. The considered view of Ministers in this Government was that serious problems were arising that Parliament and the Government would have to address. We addressed the issues responsibly by asking Lady Warnock and her committee to advise. I believe that we have acted responsibly ever since.
  I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Lady Warnock's committee. It was not given an easy remit. It was asked to address the subject at large. The fact that the Bill reflects in many of its provisions the thinking of that inquiry is a commendation of its foresight and of the firmness with which it tackled its task.
  The committee reported in 1984. There immediately followed an extensive round of public consultation. That brought in a number of responses—indeed, a scale of responses that was quite out of the ordinary for the kind of public consultation exercises that accompany many measures before they are brought before the House. We received views not just from organisations and lobbies and the leading medical scientific, legal and religious bodies, but also from many individual members of the public who feel deeply. on one side or the other, about the issues.
  We quickly introduced the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. That quickly and effectively quelled the prospect of the development of commercial surrogacy agencies in this country. There was unanimous agreement on that; the Bill was brought before the House and passed quickly. In the same year, 1985, I well remember, as one who took part in the debates, Enoch Powell's introduction of the
  916
  Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, which sought to prohibit research involving human embryos. The Bill did not complete all its stages, but it focused public attention on this highly important and sensitive matter. In the next week or two, the House will finally return to the decisive debate on the issue and come to a decision one way or the other.
  The Government issued a consultation document in 1986, the responses to which formed the basis for the White Paper entitled "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation" which we published in November 1987. The White Paper was debated in this House and, shortly thereafter, in another place. The Bill that we introduced in another place last November closely follows the policy set out in the White Paper, except as regards a small number of points of detail.
  I shall soon turn to a description of the main provisions of the Bill and will refer to the changes made to it during the debates in another place. First, however, I ought to make clear what will be the role throughout our debates of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who will be taking part in the Standing Committee debates, and also my role and that of other Ministers who may be called upon to speak from the Dispatch Box during the proceedings on the Bill.
  For the most part, the Bill is presented to the House on the same basis as any other Government measure. Ministers will speak for the Government in their capacity as Ministers on the majority of issues and in the majority of debates. But I am conscious that in the embryo research debate and on some other matters that we know may arise in Committee, the normal rules of party discipline will not apply. The Government will certainly allow a free vote on these matters to all those who normally take our Whip and to members of the Government.
  I have never made any secret of the fact that I am an enthusiastic supporter of properly regulated embryo research and, by coincidence, so is my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, but that does not mean that that is a Government position on the matter. When I speak on the merits of the case, I shall make it quite clear that I am not speaking with the authority of the Government behind me. Usually, outside the House, I talk about taking off my hat as Secretary of State for Health and putting on my hat as the Member for Parliament for Rushcliffe. That will be the case for all members of the Government and of my party. On some of the great issues of conscience, I have no doubt that members of the Government and the Conservative party will be found in both Division Lobbies, just as I confidently expect that the views of members of other major parties in the House will be divided.
  In the debates on matters of conscience, our approach will be the same as that of Ministers who dealt with such issues in the past. We shall stress that the Government do not take a collective position. Any opinions on the merits of the case will be, strictly speaking, our own. However, as Ministers, regardless of our personal views, our role is to serve the House to the best of our abilities by providing factual information in as neutral and objective a way as possible, so that the full implications of proposals are set out, and by explaining the implications of particular amendments—in both cases using the range of expertise available to Government.
  The other principal duty of Government is to ensure that the House produces legislation which has been so

  917
  drafted that, whatever the decision of the House one way or the other on the great issues, the result is practicable and effective to administer and enforce, and can be applied by the courts.
  Before turning to consider the Bill in detail, I should remind the House of one other background to the Bill—the considerable unhappiness and stress which childlessness can cause individual couples. One of the benefits that I hope will flow from the public attention given to those issues in recent years is a greater understanding and sympathy for their plight.
  The numbers are far from insignificant. About one in 10 couples are thought to be infertile, and a greater number are estimated to seek specialist help at some stage in their desire to have a family. More than for most groups, it is sometimes hard for childless couples to draw public attention to their problems. Those of us who are lucky enough to have had children naturally should not forget the considerable stress and strain posed for childless couples. Obviously, it is a perfectly legitimate medical and scientific activity to enable them to satisfy the wholly worthy objective of having families of their own.
  As far as I am aware, the Bill is the first comprehensive measure dealing with all the issues addressed by the Warnock committee concerning the legal, social and ethical implications of new methods of assisted reproduction attempted anywhere in the world. Some countries have enacted legislation dealing with some of the issues—for example, Spain and the state of Victoria in Australia. Others, such as Canada and West Germany, are actively considering legislation. In West Germany, legislation has already reached the Bundesrat.
  I should like to refer hon. Members to the recently published research project funded by my Department. It was prepared by Dr. Jennifer Gunning, who, until last summer, was secretary to the interim licensing authority. As a result of her field visits and desk research, she has produced an up-to-date account of the legal framework of issues such as in vitro fertilisation, artificial insemination by donor embryo research, abortion and research involving the use of foetal tissue covering a broad range of north American and European countries, as well as Australia. Although it is not always possible to deduce the exact implications of a particular law, the House will find it a useful document to add to scientific, medical and ethical literature produced on the subject.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: What will be the effect if the Bill fails to receive a Second Reading? Am I right in believing that embryo research will continue as at present, or would the end of the Bill mean the end of that research?
  Mr. Clarke: If the Bill fails to get a Second Reading, the law will remain as it is. As I hope most people in the House will agree, whatever our personal opinions on the merits or otherwise of research into the human embryo, the present law is totally unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, we shall be divided on the contents of the legislation, but I believe that a broad range of opinion, including those in the medical and scientific community who carry out such research, accepts the need for legislation so that everyone knows exactly what is allowed and what is not allowed under British law.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Precisely what under present law is unsatisfactory in relation to embryo research? Many of us could guess what it is, but we should like to hear from the Secretary of State what the Department considers to be unsatisfactory.
  Mr. Clarke: It will be left totally to the individual judgment of each researcher to decide at what stage of the development of the embryo they should be debarred from carrying out research. The Warnock committee concluded that research should be permitted up to 14 days, the reasons for which it set out. As there is no express legal prohibition of research, as things stand, it will be open to each researcher to make his or her personal judgment, first, about the stage of development at which he should cease the research and, secondly, about the purpose of that research.
  Those carrying out the research at present are quite content with the 14-day limit, as that is a late enough stage at which plainly an individual person would emerge. Whatever views one has on the status of a human embryo, it should not be treated as just another piece of human tissue to be researched upon purely in the spirit of open scientific inquiry.
  All responsible people feel that Parliament has a duty to set out precise limits and to establish a licensing authority, if it is the decision of both Houses of Parliament that research should be permitted.
  The most controversial aspect of the Bill sets out the statutory framework of control for the treatment of infertility and the storage of gametes and embryos. I do not wish to anticipate debate, but I believe that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members would like there to be some statutory control.
  The new statutory body, an independent body to be called the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, covers four main treatments to be licensed—artificial insemination by donor, in vitro fertilisation and egg and embryo donation. If the House agrees with the decision reached in another place, the authority will also license research involving human embryos.
  When the Bill was introduced in another place, it contained a very significant drafting innovation. Clause 11 contained alternative provisions, as the Government had promised in the 1987 White Paper, one permitting such research and the other prohibiting it. The other House was invited to reject one or the other. In the event, the proposition permitting research was carried, and an amendment moved by Lord Jakobovits, with support from the Duke of Norfolk and the Bishops of London and Southwark, which sought to restrict such research to so-called spare embryos as a result of infertility treatment, was not accepted.
  The Bill we are now debating contains, in clause 11 and related parts of schedule 2, provisions which, if enacted in their present form, would permit such research in specified circumstances. The Bill has returned to the House in the way in which the Lords preferred it, with authority for research contained in clause 11.
  The Government are anxious to give the House precisely the same choice as was presented in another place. We are therefore arranging for amendments to be drafted by parliamentary counsel which would have the effect of deleting research from the functions of the new authority. The amendments will be tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President in the interests of

  919
  securing orderly debate. He will table them in his capacity as Leader of the House to offer hon. Members the same clear choice as noble Members in the other place had and not as an expression of his opinion or of Government policy. I do not know how he will exercise his vote, but he is best placed to put before the House the choice that was rightly put before Members in the other place.
  Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider establishing a Special Standing Committee to consider these complex issues? People on both sides of the argument who are concerned about the issue should have the benefit of the detailed examination that that procedure provides. Furthermore, will he consider a free vote on provisions relating to regulations? Those provisions could become open-ended, because they could extend research beyond the point at which prohibition currently stands.
  Mr. Clarke: I understand my hon. Friend's first suggestion. I recall that a Special Standing Committee was established to consider the Mental Health Act 1983. It was useful in helping members of the Committee to form views on issues that cut across party political lines and covered detailed ethical and other judgments. The Bill is before the House after one of the longest periods of consultation and discussion that I can recall. When we asked the Warnock committee to consider the subject in 1982, neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield nor anyone else believed that it would be 1990 before a Bill was being given its Second Reading.
  Given all the private Members' Bills that have been before the House, hon. Members have had quite a few opportunities to debate the subject. It will be the general will of the House —this can be argued on the timetable motion—that key decisions should be taken on the Floor of the House before the Bill is considered by a Standing Committee.
  In Committee, Ministers will seek to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that they will not take to themselves open-ended, wide regulation-making powers. We shall be specific about the circumstances in which we contemplate such powers being used.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The House will welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about key issues being discussed on the Floor of the House. Is he aware of the deep feeling in the country that the Department and the Secretary of State should be responsible for this complex issue? They should be answerable to hon. Members on these vital matters.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall deal with the nature of the authority, but I think that I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. It has been argued that, rather than having a completely independent authority, Ministers should be responsible for these matters. We decided against that, because it would place Ministers and the House in a permanently difficult position if, as a semi-political issue, it was said that Ministers should take this or that view on medical or scientific matters. The Secretary of State, who is answerable to the House, and having consulted ministerial colleagues, will appoint members of the authority. The code of practice of the authority will have to be submitted to the Secretary of
  920
  State and laid before the House, but some independence, in medical and scientific matters is in the interests of Parliament and the Secretary of State.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposals in the Bill are in conflict with two resolutions that were carried last year by the European Parliament?
  Mr. Clarke: The proposals in the Bill will contain two options, and it will be for the House to decide how much weight to give the proposals of the European Parliament. I am aware of the reports from the European Commission, but they reach no clear or specific views. It is unwise for the European Parliament to reach conclusions intended to determine the policies of all member states. I am an extremely keen European, but I cannot conceive of a common European policy on this subject. The day that the states of Denmark, Spain, Italy and Britain reach a common view on abortion, embryo research and so on will be a considerable surprise to me and to many others.
  Before continuing with the issue of embryo research, may I draw attention to one significant change made to the Bill in the other place that would significantly affect the scope of licensing arrangements for embryo research? On Report in the other place, the Government tabled amendments, principally to clause 1, to ensure that the licensing provisions of the Bill cover research, storage and treatment not only from the point where a two-cell zygote appears for the first time—a useful point of reference that can be observed clearly—but the period of up to 30 hours when the human egg is in the process of fertilisation after the mixing of sperm and eggs. That amendment commanded general support in the other place and is useful clarification of the scope of the new authority. I hope that the House will agree that it satisfactorily resolves an issue that has concerned many members of the public since the Bill was first presented.
  I should draw attention to the clear and tight restrictions that will confine the use of embryos. Clause 3 makes it clear that no person shall bring about the creation of an embryo or use an embryo, except in pursuance of a treatment, storage or research licence issued by the new authority. I am confident that all hon. Members would like to prohibit certain activities, which include cloning or the creation of hybrids or other science fiction possibilities. There can be little doubt that infringing such prohibitions by attempting to create hybrids should attract the severe penalties provided in the Bill.
  The arguments of both sides on embryo research will be most properly deployed if we accept the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for a day's debate on the Floor of the House in the next few weeks.
  The principal consideration of those who oppose embryo research is that any embryo, even the large percentage lost through natural processes during a woman's menstrual cycle, is a potential human being with the prospect of life. Any idea of research into an embryo at the early stages of life is repugnant to many of our constituents and to many hon. Members. They believe that the law should prohibit those activities because they affect the rights of a third party—the human embryo—whose existence should override other lesser rights. I do not share those views, but I look forward to listening to them with respect and attention when they are deployed. The

  921
  arguments in favour of research are becoming well known to most hon. Members. There is broad consensus among medical and scientific opinion that such research should be permitted and that, if Parliament prohibits it, scientists will either turn to other avenues of study or go to countries where early research is allowed.
  There are five main purposes for which it is argued that research involving human embryos is medically essential and ethically justified: first, to promote advances in the treatment of infertility; secondly, to increase knowledge about the causes of congenital disease; thirdly, to increase knowledge about the causes of miscarriage; fourthly, to develop more effective techniques of contraception; and, fifthly, to develop methods of detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Research in this country into pre-implantation diagnosis is well advanced, and I understand that the first pregnancies involving that method may soon come to term. This technique could take embryo research beyond the treatment of infertility and into the prevention of inherited genetic diseases such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis.
  I suppose that on Second Reading I should do no more than set out as part of the framework the arguments on both sides which will be debated on the Floor of the House within the generous time scale proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. I am sure that, when we make our decision, hon. Members will wish to consider all those arguments, both for and against, in considerably more detail, not just on their medical and scientific merits but on ethical grounds. It is important that each side respects the strongly held views of the other side. Neither can claim to have exclusive moral virtue on its side. Both profoundly believe that their judgment is ethically correct and will argue and vote with a clear conscience for the best solution and the legal framework that they think is best for our society.
  Mr. David Alton: On the subject of laying the scientific facts objectively before the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that no cures for any inherited genetic diseases have been found as a result of any experimentation? Does he accept that leading geneticists, such as Professor Hymie Gordon and Professor Ron Taylor, who holds the chair in obstetrics and gynaecology at St Thomas's hospital, have all confirmed that other primates on which this research can be conducted are available—not human beings?
  Mr. Clarke: I am sure that those who are carrying out the research are all well motivated and responsible scientists who are doing that work only because they believe that they can alleviate human suffering and can discover much more about the nature of genetically inherited disease and therefore try to avoid it.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point is a controversial one which, no doubt, will be raised in argument on the Floor of the House. There is no scientific agreement on this point. A broad body of scientific opinion is sure that experiments with human embryos are required. That is obviously a matter of judgment and of fact upon which scientific opinion is divided and about which we shall hear much more.
  922
  In the cause of our concern about research into embryology, we must not overlook the other important parts of the Bill. Under clause 8, the authority will have the important function of advising Ministers about new developments with infertility and embryology. Since the publication of the Warnock report, there have already been major advances in what is possible. I am sure that future Secretaries of State will take full opportunity of seeking the authority's advice on such matters. The authority will oversee a detailed scheme of licensing and a large portion of the Bill is given over to spelling this out in considerable detail.
  There are provisions in clause 11 to 22 for the granting of licences by licence committees of the authority; for varying, suspending and revoking licences; and for appeals to be made to the full authority against decisions made by licence committees. The authority may also issue directions on matters such as the information to be recorded by licensed treatment centres where import or export of embryos or gametes is involved.
  Clause 25 and 26 require the authority to produce a code of practice for the guidance of those seeking and holding licences. That code of practice will need to be agreed by Ministers and, once agreed, Ministers will place it before Parliament. Drawing up that code of practice will be one of the most important tasks for the authority in its initial phase. I envisage that it will cover matters such as the counselling of patients and donors, the confidentiality of records and the collection of data.
  Clause 25 contains another important new provision, which was added to the Bill on Report in another place, on the welfare of children who might be born as a result of the treatments to be licensed by the Bill and any existing children. This arises from the question whether single women, for example, should be allowed to have infertility treatment. The consultant considering licensed treatment is required to take account of these welfare issues in deciding whether licensed treatment is suitable. The code of practice must offer him guidance in taking this decision. The addition of this requirement was greeted enthusiastically on all sides in another place, and I am sure that this improvement will significantly add to the legislation's effectiveness.
  Schedule 1 deals in detail with the composition, powers and functions of the authority. It makes it clear that its chairman and deputy chairman must be lay people, in the sense of being neither doctors nor embryologists, nor should they be, or have been, directly involved in commissioning or conducting embryo research. Of the remaining membership, the majority, but no more than two thirds, should also be lay people. Together with other ministerial colleagues, I shall devote a great deal of attention to securing a careful balance in the membership of the new authority, which will have a United Kingdom remit.
  The authority will have an important job of public service to carry out. Our objective is that, when the legislation is enacted, it should assume its full powers as soon as practicable, and we are working towards a target date of summer 1991. I hope that the new authority will begin to meet as soon as Royal Assent is given, as it will have much preparatory work to do. In the meantime, I very much hope that the interim licensing authority, sponsored by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, can continue the work that it began at our request in 1985.

  923
  That interim body, as it is now called, has shown that an effective system of licensing embryo research and IVF can be maintained. Its members have found themselves facing a longer task than I am sure they first expected and their work load has grown. I pay tribute to their energy and determination in holding the fort and upholding standards until the time was right for the Government to introduce their own measure to create a statutory licensing system.
  Clauses 27 to 29 deal with the status of children born as a result of treatments to be licensed by the Bill and carry forward the work which has already begun in the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which provides that an AID child born to a married woman is to be treated as the child of her husband. As a result of an amendment on Third Reading in another place, in the case of so-called social fathers—I know of no better description for the male partner where an unmarried couple are living together—of children born as a result of donation, where an unmarried couple are treated together, the man is to be treated as the father of the child.
  Given the commitment of the House to the family, it is right that, where treatment is given to unmarried couples after consideration of the welfare of the children which I have described, social fathers should be required to undertake full responsibilities, especially that of maintaining the child to whose birth they were party.
  Time does not allow me to deal with the Bill's many other provisions, which obviously will be carefully considered in Standing Committee, quite apart from the major issues that are to be considered on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to put it on record that there has been no complaint whatever about the licensing authority's interim work?
  Mr. Clarke: As far as I am aware, that is a fact. The authority took on an extremely difficult task in this highly sensitive and controversial matter. No one has complained about the way in which it has carried out its responsibilities, given the position in which it was placed.
  I remind the House why the Government consider it right—indeed essential—to introduce the Bill. At present, there is no statutory regulation of the treatments to be licensed under the Bill and no statutory regulation, even if Parliament decides that it should continue, of research involving human embryos. Whatever reservations or opposition some people may feel both about the treatments or, more usually, the research, there seems to be universal support for the need to provide a clear and comprehensive system of statutory control. After several unsuccessful private Members' measures, it is our duty to decide what the framework of law should be.
  It is worth perhaps pausing to reflect on the size of the step that is being taken in relation to statutory regulation of medical treatment. There are only a few other examples of such control, including abortion, female circumcision and, following the legislation which we enacted last year, human organ donation. In none of those examples, however, is the treatment regulated. In that sense, what the Bill seeks to do is very much a first.
  Few people would dispute the idea that it is normally wise to leave doctors entirely free to carry out their clinical tasks to the best of their ability without feeling the need
  924
  always to look over their shoulder to see whether they are infringing some regulation or statutory provision. It is therefore a sign of the particular seriousness of the issues which arise from these new techniques that we have taken this unprecedented step.
  The other main reason for introducing the Bill is the lack of any adequate statutory framework to cover the status and legal position of children born as a result of treatments licensed under the Bill. Whatever our views about the treatments, I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it is wrong that there should be uncertainty about the position of children born as a result of them.
  Everyone, of almost every opinion, believes that we need a Bill. The Second Reading of this Bill will pave the way for the detailed consideration of these matters and will enable the House to reach the decisions that must now be taken one way or the other so that everybody knows where we stand as a society.
  The Government have already made it clear that we intend to help to secure that aim by proposing splitting and timetable motions for the orderly debate of any amendments that may be tabled. These are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council, who will be speaking to the procedure motions later this evening. My earnest wish, which I believe is shared by all hon. Members, is that the House will take full advantage of the opportunity to reflect calmly and deeply on these important matters and come to a clear and sustainable conclusion one way or the other in the end. That is what is expected of us by those outside the House, and it is our duty to live up to that expectation.
  5.30 pm
  Ms. Jo Richardson: The Secretary of State said at the beginning of his speech that the Bill had taken some time to reach the House of Commons; he was right. Ever since the Warnock report, the first consultation paper and the White Paper, a great deal of pressure has been mounted, not only by those who want to prohibit research but by those of us who want research to be continued in a controlled, regulated and monitored way. I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Warnock, which has been most valuable and which has been the subject of great acclaim in this House and in the House of Lords. We owe Baroness Warnock and her committee a debt.
  The long waiting period has, I believe, led us to a greater understanding of the issue —that is certainly true in my case—but it has been an anxious time for scientists and clinicians and especially for infertile couples who have had to wait to know their fate. I am sure that other hon. Members will have received a large number of letters from infertile couples or those anxious that their child may have a chance of excaping some hereditary abnormality, saying that they may at least stand a chance of having a healthy, happy baby.
  We have received an enormous amount of material, too, from interest groups on both sides of the argument. I do not think that I can recall ever having seen such mountains of paper. I pay tribute to those bodies for sending us the material, which has been extremely useful. We have received material from distinguised scientists, from doctors and from prestigious organisations such as the royal colleges and the Royal Society. Theologians on

  925
  both sides of the argument have also written to us. We should all put on record our thanks for all the help that we have had in trying to understand this complex issues.
  Their Lordships have now completed their consideration of the Bill and many wise words have been said in the other place over the past four months. The Bill first reached the House of Lords in December and emerged only a couple of weeks ago, on 21 March. I am much heartened that their Lordships should have decided so positively—in a vote of almost three to one—in favour of continued research, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will have noted that response.
  At last, then, the Bill has reached us. From the flavour of his speech, I judge that the Secretary of State shares my hope that we shall conduct our debate in the same measured way as their Lordships did, even though to many the issue is emotive. My position is clear: I hope that we shall vote decisively to allow research to continue under the strict rules of the new statutory licensing authority.
  I do not propose to delve into the technical complexities of embryo research. We shall have an opportunity to do that when we come to debate clause 11 in more detail. Instead, I want to consider the overall issue without resorting to the detail. Research has been going on for more than 20 years. We sometimes forget that and think that it all started just before Baroness Warnock's committee was set up.
  It is entirely right that a strong independent statutory licensing authority should be set up to supersede the interim licensing authority, sponsored by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaelocologists, which came into being five years ago on a non-statutory, voluntary basis. That voluntary authority has done an excellent job in monitoring research, and its report on research, published last November, is a valuable document, which I commend to those hon. Members who have not read it.
  I think that we should first dispose of the horror stories told by some who say that scientists are eager to engage in cloning and other unethical practices. Reproductive technology, like all technology, is open to abuse as well as use, and the prevention of abuse is a major purpose of the Bill. As I said research has been taking place in Britain for 20 years with no real controls. It is the scientists and doctors involved—who, in my opinion, have behaved most responsibly—who have been calling for legislation that will control research, and that is what the Bill that has reached us from the House of Lords would achieve.
  The Bill would outlaw genetic engineering and cross-species fertilisation, with the important exception of the hamster test—an important clinical technique used to assess male fertility, which was the subject of a debate in the House of Lords. The World Health Organisation warmly commends the test and it is accepted throughout the world as the most accurate test available. There is no possibility of the fertilisation having developmental potential because the human and animal cells are genetically incompatible. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind and put the horror stories that we so often hear out of their heads.
  Outside the technicalities of research, I know that some people are worried about whether, from whatever ethical standpoint they have, any research should continue or
  926
  whether, by allowing research to be carried out up to 14 days, they put into question their view that a human being exists from the moment of conception. The question whether an embryo of 14 days—or, for that matter, of one day—should be accorded the status of human being has exercised minds much more brilliant than mine. The board of social responsibility of the Synod of the Church of England said in its report as early as 1984:
  "We have already expressed our view that a fertilised ovum should be treated with respect, but that its life is not so sacrosanct that it should be accorded the same status as a human being".
  I am sure that hon. Members will have read the interesting speech on this matter by the Archbishop of York.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Lady aware that 700 clergy have written to us to dissociate themselves from the views of the Archbishop of York, with which they totally disagree?
  Ms. Richardson: I have never suggested that all the theologians are on the same side. I have simply quoted, from a Library research document, what the Anglican Church said through its Synod, in 1984. Of course, people have different views on both sides of the ethical and moral argument—if we want to call it that. Some people have changed their minds over the past few years.
  While for some the issue presents a big dilemma, I must state that many millions of fertilised eggs die naturally every day. Taking the trouble to identify the fertilised egg with the most chance of being implanted and producing a much wanted baby is surely to be welcomed. Research that helps to identify that embryo holds out hope for the thousands of women—one in eight of the women in this country that we know of—who are infertile and want a child. The many women who have benefited from research so far have been able to achieve motherhood when it was denied them before.
  As research progresses it can offer a choice to women who previously had no choice but to remain childless. Research also gives hope to the large number of women who have multiple miscarriages. They are perhaps even more stressed and pained than those who have not been able to conceive. Research into miscarriages is beginning to show that they can be helped to carry through to term.
  Perhaps the most disputed and emotive part of embryo research is that which is working towards helping a woman to give birth to a healthy baby. No one questions the joy that many parents derive from caring for their handicapped children. I am president of an organisation in my constituency called the good neighbour unit scheme. That small organisation was set up by half a dozen parents of handicapped children who met from time to time to give each other support. Because of my close connection with that organisation, I have seen the depth of love that they give to their children.
  However, we must not overlook the desperate strain that those parents face when caring for their disabled children and looking after their families, perhaps including the disabled child's brothers and sisters. I have talked to all those families, and not one of them would have preferred their handicapped child not to be born whole and healthy and free from pain and frustration. I do not question their caring or love for the child who was born to them. However, each of those families told me how much they would have preferred their Liza or Jenny to be born whole, happy and free of disease.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am following the hon. Lady's argument with great care. Obviously the parents of those children would have liked them to have the great blessing of full physical health as most of us have in this place. Surely she is not saying that the parents of those children would rather not have them to look after.
  Ms. Richardson: I hope that the hon. Lady will listen to me. I did not say that. I simply said that the parents of those children have told me that they wished that their children, whom they love, were healthier. Of course we all agree about that. We are trying to ensure that in future they have a choice and that children are free from pain and frustration.
  We can all deplore the restrictions on funding for research to alleviate and perhaps cure the cruel suffering that many children face. However, it must be right that embryo research should continue with increasing understanding of the genetic defects that cause such cruel suffering. The aim of much of the research is to diagnose genetic disorders and to provide those at risk with an element of choice.
  No patient is forced to participate. Those who want to take a chance are free to do so. After all, an amniocentesis test can take place later in pregnancy. I find it very difficult to understand those who deny the opportunity for tests at a much earlier stage. No one will prevent a woman from bearing a handicapped child if she and her partner are ready to undertake that burden. However, neither should anyone compel a woman to run the risk of having a handicapped child if she does not want that. Outlawing research would have that effect. We bear a heavy responsibility in reaching our decision.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the hon. Lady clear up a confusion on that point? The parents concerned are not being offered the choice of a child being born handicapped or healthy. They are merely being offered the choice of the child who might be born handicapped not being born at all. That is selective quality control of the human race. If the hon. Lady wants to defend that, we should be clear that that is what it is.
  Ms. Richardson: I do not follow that line at all. Research offers the woman and her partner, who may perhaps already have a handicapped child, the opportunity to eliminate the hereditary gene or disorder and so enable the couple to have a whole and healthy child. We should allow the woman that opportunity and that choice.
  I remind the House that the first thing that a doctor or midwife says when he or she sees the mother after the birth of a baby is, "Don't worry. The baby's okay. It's whole and healthy." So many women and their partners want to know immediately that they have a happy and healthy child even though a defect might become apparent later.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Richardson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress, and I know that he wants to speak later.
  Before I discuss other points about the Bill, I want to refer to the dangers of allowing the separate subject of abortion to be included in this Bill. Those who are fervent in their desire to restrict women's choice by reducing the grounds for an abortion and the number of weeks beyond
  928
  which a woman may be denied an abortion have had more than enough vehicles in the shape of private Members' legislation to argue their case. There have been many attempts over the past 20 years, and traditionally the House has kept that issue to Back-Bench opportunities for legislation.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Richardson: No. I am sorry, but I shall not give way at the moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), many others and I deplore the fact that the Government have apparently given in to pressure from the vociferous lobby that has already sought to add its personal prejudices and beliefs to a number of unsuitable Bills. Indeed, I wondered at one stage whether it was going to include its prejudices in the poll tax. The Government have allowed the Bill's long title to be extended to enable abortion to be considered.
  Mrs. Winterton: Give way.
  Ms. Richardson: I shall give way in a moment. Just be patient.
  The Secretary of State for Health did not mention that point, but it is important that we should consider it. The subject of abortion is so far removed from the overall intention of the Bill, which is to control research, that amendments, to any of the clauses are impossible. There will have to be new clauses and new matter. To tack abortion on to the end of the Bill, which as it stands is a humanitarian step forward, will serve only to confuse the issue of research and increase emotions.
  Mrs. Winterton: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Abortion Act 1967, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), got on to the statute book only because the previous socialist Government gave time for a private Member's Bill?
  Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady is perfectly right. The Labour Government of the day allowed time for a private Member's Bill to go on to the statute book. It was not tacked onto the end of a public Bill. Please let us be clear about this matter. We have a public Bill. It could be about anything. It could be about electricity privatisation, or it could be the poll tax Bill. [Interruption.] I am not being flippant. It is a public Bill; it is not a private Member's Bill. It is now proposed that the long title should enable private Members' legislation to be tacked on to the end.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mrs. Edwina Currie rose—
  Ms. Richardson: I am not giving way again. The two subjects are not the same.
  Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Richardson: I am not giving way again. I have given way already, and I am taking up the time for Back-Bench Members.
  On the difficulty of marrying the two pieces of legislation together, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill covers Northern Ireland, but the Abortion Act 1967 does not cover Northern Ireland. I do not know how we shall get around that.

  929
  The House of Lords behaved sensibly and correctly. It took Lord Houghton's Bill alongside and not as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and debates were thus conducted in a sensible and comprehensive way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) has provided the House with a similar opportunity. She introduced a ten-minute Bill that is now before the House, and amendments on abortion would best be discussed under her Bill, quite separately from this one. Under her Bill, we could address the problems of late abortions, about which many hon. Members are concerned, we could talk about better access to pregnancy testing, we could examine more information to encourage women to come forward as soon as possible, we could examine the reduction of delays in referral and treatment once women come forward, and so on. But those are not matters for a Bill about human fertilisation and embryology—they are separate issues.
  We learned from the press over the weekend that the Government may use the Houghton Bill as a means of facilitating debate. As it stands and as it was passed in the House of Lords, that Bill is a progressive measure and is worthy of consideration as an entirely different piece of legislation. If we take abortion—I have the feeling that I am up against the combined might of the Government and those who are fanatically determined to include it; and I am not necessarily including all members of the Government—there is no guarantee that the Bill will go through as Lord Houghton proposes. In itself, it is a progressive measure, but there will be nothing to stop Members of the House of Commons who are opposed to abortion, who want to bring down the upper limit on abortion from, say, 28 weeks to 18 weeks, from trying also to alter the grounds of Lord Houghton's private Member's Bill. Whatever the House decides, it is unlikely or could be unlikely that Lord Houghton's Bill will survive intact.
  I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not be deluded into believing that they will see the issue settled once and for all. The Government will have set a precedent that will encourage abortion amendments to future Government Bills. I appeal to the Government and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and beyond you to Mr. Speaker, even at this stage not to allow the Bill to be confused and overshadowed by an unconnected issue.
  Mr. Alton: Before the hon. Lady leaves that point—
  Ms. Richardson: I have not finished yet. I want to make one further point about abortion.
  The Labour party has long been on record as in support of the Abortion Act 1967. Although we acknowledged the right of conscience, successive annual conferences have been clearly on record in support of a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. If we are faced with the abortion issue, I appeal to Opposition Members, at a time when there is greater understanding that women want to make choices for themselves, to heed conference decisions and not to ignore women's wishes.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it has been a long-standing tradition of the Labour movement—perhaps its oldest tradition —that, on ethical questions of faith and morals, the
  930
  conscience consideration comes first? From her acquaintance with her own party, does she not know that whatever party decisions are made, conscience considerations still weigh very heavily with some of her hon. Friends?
  Ms. Richardson: I have said—and I mean it—that the conscience clause exists. We allow hon. Members to make up their own mind. We have a free vote. However, I remind hon. Members that there is a conference decision on this matter. Here in the House of Commons, it would be good if hon. Members considered the many people who, on a different wavelength, have thought about their attitude to abortion. I beg my hon. Friends to consider that women within the Labour party and outside it feel extremely strongly about a male-dominated House of Commons taking a view on that point.
  Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Richardson: I have given way many times. I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me finish my speech. [Interruption.] All hon. Members wish to speak—they can have a go later. I wish to refer to one or two other issues in the Bill that concern me.
  The Bill needs careful examination in respect of the composition and fundings of the licensing authority. It is only right that those directly affected by research and treatment—that is, infertile people and those who carry genetic disorders—are represented on the authority. I hope that matter will be considered carefully in Committee. Women who are infertile and who want to ensure that their child will be free from a hereditary genetic disorder that they may pass on, as well as people from the National Association for the Childless, are entitled to be considered. They all have a view about this matter. They will want to be assured that their views are taken into account. Thirty-six organisations subscribe to the prestigious organisation, the Genetic Interest Group, including some that are concerned with a particular hereditary disease. They too, want an opportunity to contribute. I hope that the Secretary of State can give an undertaking that he will consider people in those groups as well as organisations such as Mencap.
  Another point that I raise with the Secretary of State is the current proposal in the Bill that the licensing authority should raise funds from clinics. That seems to be quite wrong. The full costs should be met from the public purse. Inevitably, charges will be passed on to patients. There is a serious lack of provision within the National Health Service for infertility treatment, with only two NHS-funded IVF centres in the country. Many patients are forced to resort to the private sector. Such extra charges amount to discrimination against the infertile and, in effect, a tax on infertility. There is considerable anxiety that clinics may not be able to continue.
  I am also concerned because the Bill does not include GIFT—gamete intra-fallopian transfer. In many ways, it is close to in vitro fertilisation, which is covered. The difference between the two techniques is that in GIFT, fertilisation takes place inside the woman, whereas in IVF, it takes place in the laboratory. GIFT has been under discussion for many reasons and many people feel that it should be included in the Bill and properly controlled. I believe that it would be dangerous to leave the technique out of the Bill. The clinicians involved in the treatment are concerned, and the interim licensing authority has made it clear that any such Bill should take GIFT into account.

  931
  Unless GIFT is included in the Bill, couples who are considering whether to undergo the procedure will not have the statutory right to counselling, for example. Such copies need help in considering the risk that the procedure may result in a multiple birth and the implications of that for them. I do not know why the Government have not included GIFT, but I hope that we shall have an explanation from them.
  Finally, I reiterate how very much I welcome the Bill. It has been a long time coming and relates to something that causes a lot of emotion on both sides of the argument and will continue to do so. I hope that we shall consider it in Committee as clearly and in as measured a way as we can, in trying to reach a correct measure that is understandable to the general public. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading so that we can do just that. I profoundly hope that abortion amendments will not be tabled. If they are tabled, I hope that they will not be taken. When the time comes to discuss clause 11, on the contentious issue of allowing research to continue, I hope that hon. Members will vote as resoundingly as did their Lordships.
  I repeat what I have reiterated so many times today: that controlled research will bring hope and perhaps the chance of fulfilment—I put it no higher than that—to infertile couples and to those who are carrying genetic disorders. Let us not deny them that hope.
  6.2 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: Human embryo experimentation is an emotive and controversial issue, raising questions which, for many of us, strike at the very heart of our beliefs about human life. Therefore, I begin by congratulating the Government on giving us a free vote on whether to allow such experimentation or not. I congratulate them also on providing the Bill with a long title that will enable us to table amendments to make a decision at long last on the scandal of late abortions, on which issue the House has pronounced before. Because of the tricks of some people, and because we were dealing with private Members' legislation, our will was frustrated.
  On both these issues, which were previously left to private Members' legislation, the majority in the House has been repeatedly frustrated. That must not happen again, and on that I should like to give the Government a mild warning. I hope that there is no truth in the press hints of the past few days that the Government will seek to table an amendment on the Houghton proposal on late abortion that would have the effect of allowing abortions up to birth. That would be totally unacceptable. The mere suggestion that it might happen—I hope that there is no truth in it—would cause immense anger in the country.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government will not table any amendments on that subject that express a policy decision on behalf of the Government because the Government do not have a collective view on the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, or its amendment. We must consider how we marshal the debate because, beyond doubt, hon. Members will want to discuss pro-Houghton, anti-Houghton, 26-week, 24-week, 22-week amendments and so on. The problem for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House is how to ensure that we can have an ordered debate because, no doubt, the House will have many propositions on which to vote on a free vote.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I am glad that I have drawn that assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend We are all grateful, because what he has now said is clear. I should make it plain straight away that I am speaking not only for myself but for many of my hon. Friends who, on this issue, come from all parties, when I say that we shall not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. We shall reserve our position until we see how the votes proceed in Committee on the Floor of the House.
  At long last, we have the Bill for which we in the all-party pro-life group have been calling since the publication of the Warnock report six years ago. As we know, the report recommended that experiments on human embryos should be allowed up to 14 days after fertilisation. However, what is often forgotten—it has not been mentioned so far this afternoon —is that the Warnock committee was not unanimous; there were sizeable dissenting voices. One of my advisers, who was a member of the Warnock committee, produced a minority report that came out against all destructive human embryo experimentation. Not surprisingly —as I was here at the time I can well remember this—the report was coolly received in both Houses of Parliament.
  Let me come straight to the heart of the matter. What is the human embryo? Incidentally, the Warnock report refused to answer that question and skipped over it as though it did not really matter. As a consequence, much of the debate surrounding this issue has been concerned with the possible benefits of such research. However, for me and many others, that is the wrong starting point. Before talking about benefits, we must decide upon what or whom we are experimenting.
  I ask myself two questions. First, is the embryo human? The answer is undoubtedly yes. It comes from a human sperm and a human egg, so what else could it be but human? Secondly, is it alive? Again, I have to answer yes. It is growing and developing at a tremendous rate. It has an orientation towards growth and is thus different from the previously inert sperm and egg. The simple fact is that the human embryo is a tiny human being, which has all the potential to become a foetus, a baby, a child and an adult, given a favourable environment and appropriate nutrients.
  Having established what the human embryo is, I should like to make clear the position on experimentation arid research of the all-party pro-life group, of which I have been chairman for some years. We are not against all experimentation on human embryos. We are not against scientific research. What is in question is not research as such, but destructive research. The distinction is important. We have no problem with therapeutic experimentation that will help a particular embryo to live and grow.
  What is immoral, in our view, is experimentation that uses one embryo—that is, another human being—as a means to an end. We are not against experimentation on human subjects. If a scientist requires human cells, he takes a graft and cultivates the cells. Provided that consent has been given, we have no objection to that. Such an experiment would not be fatal. We object to experimentation that kills the patient.
  That is not an extreme position, as it is sometimes portrayed. Rather, it is the only logical and responsible position to take. We are not seeking to place unreasonable restrictions on scientists. We are not saying, "No research." All that we are saying is that such scientists should abide by the same principles of medical ethics as

  933
  apply to every other area of medicine. No other area of medical research demands the right to perform destructive research upon human subjects. No other area of research claims that progress cannot be made without the right to destroy. No other area of research comes to Parliament to ask us to suspend the usual rules of medical ethics for their benefit so that they can use human beings as they would use experimental animals.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Tens of thousands of families have benefited from the pioneering research that has been carried out by Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards. Can my right hon. Friend name anyone who has suffered from such research?
  Sir Bernard Braine: No, but my hon. Friend has not been listening to what I have been saying. His point has little to do with experimentation on the human embryo. I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I wish to set out clearly—beyond any doubt whatsover
  —where the all-party pro-life group stands on this issue. We have been frustrated for six years. We have succeeded in obtaining majorities on the Benches of the House for our beliefs and for what we stand for, only to be frustrated. Therefore, I wish to be brief, sharp and to the point.
  The Bill, as it has come to us from another place, proposes research up to 14 days. My first question is, 14 days after what? Something must have started 14 days previously to enable us to begin evaluating time. What was it that happened? The sperm fertilised the egg and a completely new entity was formed, directed towards its own growth and development. That was the beginning of a new human life. None of us claims that it is now fully formed. The only difference is one of size, not of humanity. Indeed, I would charge those who support embryo experimentation with improperly discriminating against another human being on the grounds of size.
  What can be said of this proposed 14-day limit? If Parliament were to sanction 14 days, would that be the end of it? I think not. Already some leading experimenters tell us that they want to go further. For example, Professor Bob Williamson has said:
  "It should perhaps be noted here that organogenesis—(that is the development of the organs) … for the most part occurs at between 14 and 28 days of embryonic development. It is this area of research, which is central to the understanding of congenital malformation, which in my view would be most inhibited were a strict 14 day rule to be implemented."
  In its paper on the development of the human conceptus, the Royal Society lists the possible benefits of research from day one to the end of the fourth week. That is well beyond 14 days. Why are such benefits listed when we are supposed to be dealing with a limit of 14 days? The answer is that Baroness Warnock herself stated on the day that her report was published in 1984 that 14 days
  "would do for a beginning."
  That is what we are faced with here.
  Therefore, the conclusion that I reach is that, far from a stringent control on experimentation, 14 days will be the thin end of the wedge. I cannot accept that the Bill constitutes strict guidelines. On the contrary, apart from cloning, genetic engineering and producing animal hybrids, the scientist will be able to do what he likes under
  934
  the Bill. It is laudable that those extreme forms of human manipulation will be outlawed, but there is nothing at all to protect embryos from destructive procedures.
  When one bases decision-making on the proposed benefits of a type of research, rather than its morality, one will always be under pressure to extend that limit when greater benefits are envisaged. That is no way to make law. The anticipated benefits of research seem compelling, but they are misleading. The case for permitting embryo research rests heavily on the benefits that it will allegedly bring in prevention of handicap.
  Let us consider the word "prevention". The normal use of the word suggests that the person in question avoids a disease. However, the word as employed in this context has changed its meaning. Here it means eliminating the individual with the disease and in that way preventing it. We all want to see diseases and handicaps eliminated, but this is totally different from preventing the handicapped from living. That is what is involved in embryo research. It is the "search and destroy" mentality—searching out the imperfect and destroying them just because they do not match up to our ideas of perfection. On that basis, Beethoven would never have been born.
  It is a fallacy, too, that without destructive research on the human embryo, research into genetic diseases will be brought to a halt. Great advances have been made in treatment of genetic and chromosomal diseases without the use of human embryos. Crucial developments in sickle cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and congenital adrenal hyperplasia have all been achieved without human embryo experimentation. Genuine help for sufferers and families will come from advances in treatment of the disorder, not from the destruction of those who are identified at the embryonic stage. The pro-research group Progress has admitted:
  "Research using human pre-embryos is not, and never has been, concerned with the treatment of genetic or chromosomal abnormalities".
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Bernard Braine: On the question of language I would point out another semantic difference that has entered this debate. That is the term "pre-embryo". It did not appear in the Warnock report. One would look for it in vain in any medical dictionary. The distinguished scientific journal Nature recommended the banning of the term and said:
  "Put simply, this usage is a cop-out, a way of pretending that the public conflict about IVF and other innovations in human embryology can be made to go away by means of an appropriate nomenclature."
  The term "pre-embryo" was invented to confuse and baffle and to dehumanise the early embryo.
  Let us also get rid of the fallacy that all doctors and scientists are in favour of destructive embryo research. I am advised by a distinguished group of scientists and doctors. I shall mention a few. Professor John Marshall is emeritus professor of clinical neurology at the university of London. He was a member of the Warnock committee and signed the expression of dissent. Another is Professor Erwin Chargaff, who is emeritus professor of biochemistry at Columbia university. He is probably one of the most distinguished figures in medicine in the United States. His work in the 1940s provided crucial information that was to lead to Watson and Crick's formulation of a model of DNA. Professor Sir John Dewhurst was president of the

  935
  Royal College of Obstretricians and Gynaecologists and is now emeritus professor at Queen Charlotte's hospital in London. I could keep the House here all night if I mentioned all the doctors who have written to me—and doubt to other hon. Members—in support of our position.
  The media have created the impression that all scientists are in favour of destructive embryo research. That is a lie. I assert that here on the Floor of the House. They are not. Despite all our protests, the BBC in particular continues to peddle that line.
  I am also perturbed by the proposal in the Bill to establish a statutory licensing authority. At present all the decision-making in this important area is given to a body which will be far from the reach of Parliament and the public. If I may adopt Winston Churchill's words, "Up with this we will not put."
  Let us contrast the proposed procedure with the licensing of research work involving animals. In animal research, the Home Secretary has to grant a licence to the scientists involved and for each separate experimental project that they wish to conduct. That makes the Home Secretary directly responsible to the House for the licences that he issues. Even in this context the human embryo would have no more protection than the laboratory rat. The granting of licences for research involving human embryos should therefore be in the hands of the Secretary of State for Health, who in turn should be directly answerable to the House. The subject is so important that we would find no other arrangement acceptable.
  May I remind the House of a few basic principles of medical ethics that have stood the test of time and are now in danger of being forgotten? I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State did not refer to them or explain how the Bill fitted into what most people would regard as medical ethics. The Helsinki declaration states clearly:
  "In research on man the interests of science and society should never take precedence over consideration relating to the well-being of the subject."
  A distinguished paediatrician, Dr. Anthony Cole wrote to me recently. He said:
  "On the question of human embryo experimentation the onus is upon those who support it to demonstrate that the interests of society and its values are not endangered."
  I am not convinced that those who support such experimentation have done this or, can do so. Indeed, one leading pro-experimenter, Dr. Robert Edwards, has remarked blithely,
  "Scientists make ethics as they go along."
  There is a short answer to such arrogance, and Parliament must give it. Although the issues may seem complex to the lay person, the question posed by the Bill is very simple. It is, do we favour the destruction of human life, or not?
  6.19 pm
  Sir David Steel: The members of my party, in common with those of other parties represented in this House, have a free vote on the Bill. I shall advance only my own views. I believe that they carry the support of the majority of my colleagues, but by no means all of them. In particular, I am conscious that my vocal hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to put a very different point of view.
  I welcome the tone of the opening speech of the Secretary of State for Health, and particularly the fact that the Bill is presented to the House with a timetable motion
  936
  attached. Many right hon. and hon. Members have sat through the progress of legislation when clauses 1 and 2 have been exhaustively debated but the remainder rushed through under a guillotine, and we have long argued for such a sensible reform as the attaching of a timetable motion. If the House could proceed with more timetable motions on an agreed basis, the quality of our legislation would improve. Let us hope that the Bill sets a welcome precedent that will be followed in future.
  I do not propose to speak on the arguments about abortion. The other place was sensible to keep the two issues separate. If that is not to be, and if the Government are determined to introduce a clause on the entirely different subject of abortion, I shall address myself to it at the appropriate time. Meanwhile, I shall confine my remarks to the Bill as it stands.
  I read carefully and welcomed the Warnock report, which was lucidly and logically argued—but time has moved on since that report was published in 1984. I take up immediately a point made by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, because, unlike him, I believe that the phrase "pre-embryo" has a definitive and useful meaning that helps to clarify our debates. A paper submitted by the Medical Research Council makes this point:
  "In vitro fertilisation has made the early stages of development more important to scientists and as a consequence there is a need for a precise term to denote the conceptus in the first fourteen days after fertilisation prior to the appearance of the 'primitive streak' (the first sign of a human individual)."
  The MRC also quotes the words of the Reverend Professor Dunstan:
  "For upwards of two thousand years the embryo has been used to denote growth of the organism in the womb from the time of the first formation of the body parts until their completion followed by the fetal stage in which the completed baby grows to viability. Now that science has revealed a vital pre-embryonic stage of cellular activity before orgariogenesis can begin an appropriate name should be given to it. Pre-embryo seems a proper name to describe this stage in development."
  I agree, and the right hon. Member for Castle Point skipped over that point in his description of the development of the embryo.
  I am in agreement also with the Archbishop of York and the majority of the bishops in the other place when they argue that, as the pre-embryo is, up to the 14th day, a cell over whose destiny no decision has yet been made as to whether it ever becomes a human being, or indeed, twins, or triplets, there is no sense in which it cart be claimed that it can have an identity or a human personality, or that it can be treated as a human being in the way that the rhetoric of others attempts to suggest. Because the pre-embryo has no identity, it must have a special legal status, as set out in the Bill.
  I am unable to accept some of the language used by certain organisations and lobbyists. I could even read across the Chamber a leaflet in the hands of the right hon. Member for Castle Point that used the words "human vivisection". That is a total misnomer when applied to the Bill before us.
  Sir David Price: Does not the hon. Gentleman make a distinction from the moment of implantation? To me, no such clear distinction has been made in any of the debates in another place. I believe that there is a distinction to be drawn between the fertilised egg

  937
  before implantation and after implantation. Many of the problems that arise with twins, for example, occur at the earlier stage, not the latter.
  Sir David Steel: The hon. Gentleman is probably perfectly correct. I do not claim any great wisdom in matters of medical science, and I acknowledge that there are different stages of development. It is quite wrong to pretend that it is one continuous, unaltering process from day one to the ninth month. The Bill attempts to draw a line at a particular recognised point.
  In view of regular scientific developments and the strong views held by right hon. and hon. Members, it would be useful if the Government would accept an amendment to provide for an annual debate on, for example, a report from the licensing authority. I hope that the regulations may be altered to allow for that.
  It is important that the public should be clear on the issues and not be misled as to what the Bill will and will not permit. It will not allow experiments on the foetus, cross-genetic breeding with other species, or destructive experimentation of a kind that the whole House would find repugnant. Those who argue against any research do so on the basis of establishing their own certainties—which they are perfectly entitled to do, but which they are not entitled to inflict on others.
  At the time of the Warnock report, my brother, who is a research doctor, told me that an aspect of the opposition to its proposals that puzzled him was that one of the purposes of such research is to discover the reason why certain women suffer repeated, spontaneous miscarriages. I thought that those who value life, in the sense that they use the word, would also be concerned to stop the waste of life that is represented by repeated miscarriages.
  I do not deny that individual scientists, doctors and clergymen, as well as right hon. and hon. Members, oppose the Bill, but we should acknowledge also that the organisations who support it include the National Association for the Childless, the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaeocologists, the Royal Society, the Medical Research Council, and the Genetic Interest Group, which comprises no fewer than 36 organisations dealing mainly with the disabled. They all urge the House to support embryonic research and its legalisation.
  I conclude by quoting a letter that I received from the father of four severely handicapped children—one of whom died:
  "In many of these illnesses, our own among them, there is every hope that the couple in question can produce healthy children at subsequent pregnancies. In our case, the probability of any given pregnancy resulting in a genetically damaged child is 50 per cent. The statistical chance is the same at each subsequent pregnancy. We were just very unlucky that all four of our children were born with Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome."
  He adds:
  "For our condition there is no cure, but prediction and prevention may very soon be possible. Genetic research is on the point of a breakthrough into techniques which will enable doctors to advise young parents about the future of any children as yet unborn."
  He concludes:
  "This progress, and our hope for our families, is threatened by people who oppose genetic research without reservation, or much reason. Frequently their argument is based on emotion, rather than logic. I accept their right to
  938
  hold those views, but I do not accept their right to impose them on others. Members of our families are having to undergo laser treatment to their eyes, kidney operations, spine operations, and brain operations. In spite of these treatments some of us go blind, and a few of us die. It is against this background that I am writing to ask for your support."
  6.28 pm
  Sir Charles Morrison: Just as I agree whole-heartedly with the speech of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), equally I whole-heartedly disagree with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I regret that, not only because my right hon. Friend is an old and valued colleague, but because he speaks with the authority of Father of the House.
  I want to take up two points made by my right hon. Friend. He spoke with considerable scepticism about the research that has already occurred. In comparison with my right hon. Friend, I have been in the House for a relatively short time only, but just over 20 years ago I visited a hospital in my constituency for the mentally subnormal. I was taken round by the doctor in charge and I remember passing a door to a ward through which the doctor did not lead me. I asked what was in there, but the doctor told me that we were not going into that particular ward.
  I persisted with my questioning and I was told that it was a children's ward. I said that I should like to visit that ward, but the doctor told me that I would not. I persisted in my desire to see it and the doctor told me that, if I insisted, I should take a grip of myself. he was right to give me that advice, because when I went into that ward I saw human beings, none of them over the age of 10, who were virtually unrecognisable as such. Nowadays, that ward does not exist because of research undertaken in the past.
  My right hon. Friend also said that, as a result of the Bill, a scientist would be able to do what he wanted. I do not believe that that is so. In future, any scientist who undertakes research will do so only under the provisions of clause 11 and schedule 2. According to my reading, the Bill certainly does not allow a scientist to do what he wants.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the research takes place under the aegis of self-regulation? It is precisely because the therapeutic benefit of what is done is decided by the scientists and the doctors that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was entirely justified in his claim—they will have the right to determine the question.
  Sir Charles Morrison: I disagree with my hon. Friend. Until now, we have lived in a completely self-regulatory world, but, in future, that will not be so. It is clear that there is a disagreement about the meaning of the Bill in this respect.
  The Bill is only before us because of advances in scientific and medical knowledge and because of the continuing potential for research, as well as for the application of existing or future knowledge and its consequences. There is nothing new about such research, but it has advanced so far and its application is growing to such an extent that legislation is necessary not only to regulate research on embryos and to protect the integrity of reproductive medicine, as well as the legal position of the scientist or clinician, but to take account of social and ethical considerations.
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point, but does he accept that, at some future date, some other people will be sitting here debating whether the advances made by experimentation mean that the 14-day stage stated in the Bill is inadequate? What type of moral dilemma will face those who must decide at what stage such experimentation becomes what some of us would regard as the killing of a human being? By discussing the Bill as it is framed, we are postponing the time when such a decision will be made.
  If the experts in experimentation were to tell us today that experiments on an embryo of 17 days could well result in a cure for one of the genetic diseases, what would we then do?
  Sir Charles Morrison: I wish that I could foresee what might happen about any issue. With all respect, the hon. Gentleman is making a hypothetical point. I do not know what will happen in the future, except that, if the Parliament of the day is presented with the type of question the hon. Gentleman posed, it will pass judgment upon it, just as we are being asked to pass judgment on the questions contained in the Bill. It is impossible to foresee what might happen.
  Given the present stage of research and development, a recognised need for legislation has arisen. I do not believe that there is any logic in legislating to bring such research to an end. I recognise, of course, that the House must strike a balance between what is ethically acceptable and what it might be possible to achieve or attempt to achieve through research.
  As a result of the Bill, the House must consider the status of human beings and their ability to reproduce their own species, as well as the status of the means by which that is achieved. It is our good fortune that the Bill has already been considered in another place. As a result, I believe that it is in pretty good order, but three matters will need further attention in Committee.
  First, the cost of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority should be borne totally by the public purse. That authority will act for all people, so its costs should not be borne by a charge on the infertile, as clause 43(7) implies. Secondly, concern has been expressed to me about the authority's register of information and the anonymity of donors. The Committee will have to consider that issue carefully. Thirdly, it is important to consider GIFT—gamete intra-fallopian transfer. Although it is similar to in vitro fertilisation, IVF, it is not currently within the remit of the authority. On the basis of what I have been told, however, it should be, and there is need for regulation on this as there is in other areas.
  Overall I whole-heartedly accept the need for the Bill, for an authority and for regulation. Against the background of control, there is a continuing need for research, notably on the matters mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he introduced the Bill.
  First, it is important to improve the success rate of IVF above the present level of between 10 and 15 per cent. Secondly, improved knowledge of pre-implantation diagnosis could reduce the annual number of abortions by about 1,500. That would be welcome, since those abortions take place as a result of the detection of abnormalities at up to 16 weeks. If abnormalities
  940
  stemming from genetic disorders could be detected through identifying the affected embryos, all the trauma of a late abortion could be avoided.
  Thirdly, it amazes me that, even now in the 1990s, one in five pregnancies end in miscarriage. Surely more research is needed on that. Fourthly, research would also help infertility, which affects about one in 10 couples in the United Kingdom. Fifthly, research could also aid contraception, which could be of major help to family planning.
  In all five of those sectors, research is being undertaken at present under the control of the interim licensing authority. I was glad that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) drew attention to the fact that, as far as we know, no decision made by that authority has been questioned. That shows that the self-governing work which has so far been undertaken has been carried out with the greatest possible responsibility. I am convinced that research presently being undertaken must continue.
  I do not believe that the Bill is a suitable vehicle for further consideration of abortion. However, if there is to be an abortion amendment, I hope that, ultimately, the House will decide to accept and agree with the provisions of the Bill introduced in another place by Lord Houghton.
  Praise and the greatest possible respect are given to parents of handicapped children, which must be absolutely right. One must understand that some of those parents are opposed to research, and I am sure that this is because of the happiness brought into their lives by their children. However, with the greatest humility, I suggest that those who are even better qualified than the parents to pass judgment about research are the handicapped people themselves. What would their answer be to the question, "If you were to have a child, would you want it to be free of the affliction from which you have suffered?"
  If research were to be banned in the United Kingdom, surely the benefits from such research undertaken elsewhere should also be banned from use in this country. To do otherwise would be a major hypocrisy.
  Although I have two Roman Catholic grandchildren, for better or worse I am not a member of that Church, and thus its disciplines are not imposed on me. I have the luxury of being a part of the lesser certainty that exists in the Church of England. In discussions about human fertilisation and embryology, I find it impossible to conclude that there are any certainties or absolutes. However, as a Christian, I believe that benefits for mankind stem, in origin, from divine intervention. I cannot be certain about that, but that is my belief. Therefore, when research can be undertaken which may produce benefit, but also gives rise to other ethical considerations, balance and moderation are needed. I believe that the Bill provides those qualities.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I subscribe entirely to the recent statement by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster that nothing demonstrates more dramatically the collapse of moral consensus in Britain today than the prolonged and, at times, bitter debate over issues of love, life, marriage and the family. Equally important are the profoundly moral arguments about the origin of life, the status of the embryo and the freedom to experiment, and then destroy, human life in its first 14 days.

  941
  The phrase "medical ethics" is now a contradiction in terms. From the time of Hippocrates until the early post-war period, doctors took the oath. They no longer do so because it has become a farce, as the oath contained an explicit undertaking not to cause harm to a child in the womb. Until quite recently, medical dictionaries and textbooks made it plain that human life began at the moment of conception, but no longer. Recent editions are evasive, not because of any advance in medical science, but because specious, ex post facto justification is sought for abortion and, now, for experimentation on little children. That is why those two subjects need to be taken together in the Bill.
  Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the experiments on little children which he has just mentioned will take place? I do not understand.
  Mr. Duffy: I am coming to that. One of the worries about allowing research on embryos within the first 14 days is that it could lead to wider forms of research than are intended by Parliament. As an example of how the abandoning in law of a basic medical ethic can lead to unforeseen consequences, we need look no further than the Abortion Act 1967. I need look no further than my city of Sheffield, where the percentage of terminations of pregnancy continues to be considerably higher than the average for England and Wales. Section 4 of the Act, which relates to handicapped children, is invoked for less than 1 per cent. of all those terminations.
  There is nothing illogical about combining legislation on abortion and embryonic research, despite the objections voiced in one of the opening speeches, because a human embryo is a human embryo whether it is in a test tube or in utero. A rose is a rose not only by any other name, but no matter where it is or at what stage of its development. Therefore, it is not illogical to view the human embryo as something that should neither be killed in some circumstances or used for certain research purposes.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally incongruous that today, in National Health Service and other hospitals, there are doctors fighting to save the lives of children born at 22 weeks for parents who desperately need them, while further down the corridor, doctors are doing exactly the opposite for a child of 26 to 28 weeks?
  Mr. Duffy: It is more than incongruous, it is downright immoral. [Interruption.] I hope that I did not hear someone on the Front Bench sniggering at the mention of the word "moral" because it will be heard a good deal more before I sit down. Morals cannot be confined to individuals and do not arise from individual preferences. They are not based on utilitarian consequences. I suggest that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench should consult a dictionary about the meaning of the word.
  The vital decisions that we reach on human fertilisation and embryology, and subsequently on pregnancy termination, must affect how we regard the status of each individual, his or her human rights, the treatment of the handicapped, and the fate of the senile and the terminally ill. How we treat human life at any of its stages is of the highest moral significance. Once we are convinced that we
  942
  have the right to determine when life becomes human and when it ceases to be so, we stand in danger of creating a society that is potentially self-destructive.
  Therefore, we need to proceed with the greatest care. Embryo research is complex, and involves a spectrum of medical, scientific, ethical and moral issues. It also abounds in myths and partial truths. The first is the notion that freedom to experiment on human embryos is necessary to help infertile couples. But is that so? A recent article and correspondence in the Lancet on the benefits of in vitro fertilisation raised important questions about the cost of IVF, its benefits and the ratio of cost to benefit. Other critics of IVF point to its experimental status, its uncertainty, its as yet unappraised risk factors and the divergent rates of success. That doubt was raised in a report of the World Health Organisation's regional office for Europe, entitled "Are In Vitro Fertilisation and Embryo Transfer of Benefit to All?"
  There is a remarkable lack of scientifically based assessment of worldwide rates of success, and that has inevitably led to doubt about what the real success rates are. There is also growing doubt about whether further embryo research is the best way forward, and there is even increased recognition that assisting fertility does not depend on IVF alone. For example, microsurgery for women, the growth of services for male infertility and new techniques of molecular biology show that the lack of destructive experimentation would not, ipso facto, impede improvements in the treatment of fertility. We are assured that other methods are coming along—as good as, and increasingly better than, such experimentation, provided that they are not starved of financial, human and material resources because of the IVF programme. We all invoke and welcome the results of the IVF programme, whenever we meet them. I am godparent to an adorable child who was conceived using this method and I know what great joy he has brought to his family and to many of his parents' friends.
  The second myth is that embryo experimentation is necessary in the fight against inherited genetic disease. Yet it now seems clear from a booklet issued by the pro-research group, Progress, entitled, "Freedom to Choose", that research on the embryo with respect to genetic diseases is directed not a cure but at prevention. The public have been misled into thinking that embryo research will produce cures for diseases such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome, as most hon. Members must know from their post bags. Will those in favour of human embryo research give the House one example of what has been discovered in research into genetic diseases that could not have been discovered in another way?
  It is a matter of the highest priority that research should continue into improving the lives of handicapped people. One of the more consoling aspects of our present dark age is that we now give much more attention to the mentally and physically handicapped than we did even 25 or 30 years ago. On all sides we are aware of the enormous love and care that a mother and father will exhibit towards a handicapped child. So I hope that we shall not make heavy weather of this point during the rest of this debate.
  No one who saw "Songs of Praise", broadcast a week ago from St. Mary's cathedral, Middlesbrough, can fail to have been touched by the spirit of Dominic, who has Down's syndrome, or inspired by the devotion of his mother, Mrs. Norah Jones, for whom Dominic is, as she said, all the more precious. She went on:

  943
  "In the company of handicapped children you feel you're as near to Heaven as you'll ever get on this earth."
  The third and probably most mistaken and dangerous notion is that the medical and scientific establishment is not violating the sanctity of human life but is taking welcome advantage of the new-found possibilities of research into fertilised cells before they attain human status. A unique biological event occurs with the conjunction of egg and sperm, as I am sure we all agree. The contribution of modern genetics has shown, however, that the genetic code is a fundamental organising principle and that there is radical unity long before the 14-day stage.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will not mind my quoting her remarks in a recent issue of "The House Magazine". She said that, at this stage, the embryo
  "consists of a few cells the size of a pin head and it would clearly be absurd to place its welfare on the same footing with that of so many other human beings whose hopes and needs might benefit from the research."
  My hon. Friend is not alone in that view: it was quoted often enough in the recent debate in another place, so she is in good company.
  At some stage of our lives all of us in the Chamber were indistinguishable little globules made of a few cells. Who could have predicted how or why those globules would turn into the different individuals that we are, or which one would turn into which person?
  Mr. Doug Henderson: Does my hon. Friend, and do other hon. Members who have campaigned with him on this issue, agree that ultimately the arguments are about the balance of morality, and that one must balance the theological view that he has just put against the potential benefit to people who, in the absence of further embryo research, would end up being disabled for the rest of their lives, or to the children who will not be born because of their parents' infertility?
  Mr. Duffy: A calculation about morality is a contradiction in terms; my hon. Friend does not understand the meaning of morality. Secondly, there is no lack of concern in the House about the handicapped or about improving their lot. Nor is there any lack of appreciation of the lot of the parents of handicapped children, or any lack of admiration for them.
  The status of the human embryo and its dignity and rights under the law should be determined by the human life that it undoubtedly has from the beginning. It is recognition that it undoubtedly has from the beginning. It is recognition of that continuous human development that compels me to oppose on principle any proposal to treat this human life in the same way as experimental tissue.
  There is no evidence that scientists need human embryos for any worthwhile research, yet we are in serious danger of crossing the fine line that separates science from the eugenics of a brave new world—and we may be alone, for more and more countries are examining this practice and becoming increasingly concerned about its ethical considerations. It has been forbidden in Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Portugal and parts of Australia. It will soon be forbidden in West Germany, and the European Council of Ministers has recommended the same course of action.
  It is interesting that the German Government should be taking so strong a line. Memories of the recent shameful abuse of human life by German doctors and scientists are
  944
  still fresh and have alerted people to the evil potential of test tube biotechnology. Yet the German Bill has been criticised by the SPD and the Green party on the grounds that it does not go far enough in protecting the embryo or controlling the enthusiasm of doctors and researchers. The Germans have had experience of this sort of thing, and we are only just beginning.
  We need to remind ourselves continually that the end does not justify the means; that men and women are more than a bundle of cells; and that they have incomparable potential. Let us then stop playing God with the lives of unborn children—we are not sexing chickens. We have a duty to uphold respect for human dignity.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I realise that this debate will be dominated by discussion, such as that in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), of the possibility of experimentation on embryos, but I want to confine almost all my speech to another problem that the Bill raises. I refer to clause 27 and the meaning of "the mother".
  However, to fall in line with everyone else, I want first to say a brief word about experiments. I have listened extremely carefully to many of my constituents and to many people outside this House, but I have always found it very had to agree with those who claim that an embryo or foetus that cannot yet exist in a free state should be able to demand the same protection under the law as that same entity should demand after it is able to exist in a free state.
  That is why I shall vote, if I have the opportunity, to reduce the stage of a pregnancy by which an abortion can take place from the present 28 weeks, and it is why I agree with a large majority in another place, and with the Secretary of State, that strictly controlled experiments on embryos up to 14 days should be allowed. Many children and families could be saved enormous distress over infertility or disease by this move. The example quoted by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) was of a constituent of mine who had written to the right hon. Gentleman. I am conscious of the case that he quoted to the House.
  Clause 27 follows the Warnock recommendations by defining the mother as the woman who carries the child, having had either an embryo or sperm and eggs placed in her. I do not disagree with that judgment because it is right in almost all circumstances. My speech and those of other hon. Members seem to revolve on our constituents. I have a most important case in my constituency which should make the House and the Government think again about the operation of clause 27.
  That case involves a couple. The wife has no uterus and is quite incapable of bearing children. However, she has ovaries and ovulates normally, and some time ago ova flushed from her body were fertilised in a laboratory by her husband's sperm. These fertilised ova led to what I shall call embryos, which were placed in the uterus of a lady who agreed to carry the growing embryos. I am assured that she did so without fees. In due time, the lady gave birth to twins and gladly handed them over to their genetic parents, my constituents. The House can imagine the enormous joy of my constituents when at last they were able to have children who were entirely their own. They are

  945
  smashing children and I have met them. They are very young. They were united with their genetic parents with the full support of the surrogate mother.
  All went well. The authorities who look after such things were entirely happy for my constituents to have the children. The rub was that the authorities said that as they understood the law the couple would have to adopt the children. My constituents said, "Certainly not, they are our children. It is like buying one's own possessions back." Ultimately the case will go to the courts. It was referred to in The Times of 28 February by the solicitor concerned, and I do not propose to say any more about that case.
  I think that I am right in saying that my constituents are the first example of such a thing happening in this country. No doubt more will follow in the years ahead, although I do not suppose that there will be many. I want the Secretary of State to think hard about this case. It is hard to argue that my constituents are not the father and mother of the twins. It should be quite simple for us to deal with such a situation. It will not happen often, but it should be dealt with during the progress of the Bill.
  We should consider amending clause 27 so that in cases of the sort that I have described, a judge in the family division of the High Court could make an order relating to the children, granting parental responsibility or awarding care and control of the children to their genetic mother either on her own or with another. In such cases, the genetic mother should for all purposes be treated as the mother of the child. That would be a sensible change in the Bill and I hope that the Committee will consider it.
  If that amendment or something like it were to be made, it would apply only when the identity of the genetic mother had been positively ascertained through genetic fingerprinting, which can be done nowadays. Secondly, it would happen only when the surrogate mother, as in the case I have quoted, had no reservations about the judgment and whose emotional attachment to the child did not cause any serious objections to that judgment.
  As I have said, this would happen rarely. I cannot believe that an amendment of the sort that I have proposed would in itself encourage surrogacy, which I do not particularly want to do. It would add common sense to an unusual, unsatisfactory and unfair situation, as my constituents have found to their cost. They have met enormous difficulty in connection with the case that they will have to take to the courts in the next few months.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind hon. Members that we are now into the 10-minute limit on speeches and that it will apply until 9 o'clock.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has highlighted the need for this legislation. Changes have taken place because of developments in medicine and science, and opportunities for families exist now that did not exist a generation ago. We have to face the questions that those matters raise in the same way as the Warnock committee faced them. I support the Bill and strongly support the provision brought in by the Lords for research to be allowed. I realise that this is a contentious issue and that it will be fiercely debated at later stages in the progress of the Bill.
  946
  I should declare a family interest. We lost two boys, Alun and Geraint, in late 1984, early 1985, within three months of each other. They suffered from a severe genetic disability which caused mental and physical handicap. We have two other children, Eluned and Hywel who, mercifully, are free from that condition. The problems that we faced were no different from the problems faced by thousands of other people in these islands. Millions are at risk from conditions such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis and from about 1,000 genetic disorders.
  Every one of us probably carries two or three gene defects, and it is a matter of luck that we do not meet another person who carries the same defects and produce offspring with handicaps. It is a matter of luck that other hon. Members do not meet the problem of genetic handicap within their own families. Some hon. Members may have children who are carriers of one or more of the common types of genetic defect and who may marry someone who is also a carrier.
  Some hon. Members may become grandparents and, totally without warning or explanation, will have to watch helplessly as their grandchildren suffer the effects of a severe genetic disorder, sometimes in excruciating pain. They will have to watch helplessly as their grandchildren die a slow death. Some genetic conditions create self-mutilation among babies, and grandparents have to watch that, too. They may have to share the agony of their children having to face a decision about whether to try for another child, having lost one who had a physical disability.
  As has been said, the chances of the disability appearing in a subsequent child may be 1:2 or 1:4. Perhaps the parents will hope that it will not happen again and that all will be well. However, many do not try again because they are unwilling to bring into the world a baby who will face the same suffering that they have seen already. That could happen to any one of us and it is happening to dozens of our constituents.
  How can such suffering be avoided? If it is diagnosed early enough in pregnancy, can anything be done to put the defect right? The Bill has massive implications for families at risk from genetic disorders. In its present form it will allow vital research to continue within strict guidelines. I congratulate the House of Lords on its massive majority in favour of research. For that reason I shall support the Bill. As the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, if the restrictive clause were built in at a later stage of the Bill, I, like the right hon. Gentleman, would review my position because that consideration is very important.
  I draw to the attention of the House comments that were made in New Scientist on 4 November under the title "Why experiment on human embryos?" It says:
  "Politicians will decide whether to make illegal what is now a thriving area of progress in our understanding of human reproduction and early development … It would prevent the diagnosis of severe genetic disorders in embryos, which recent research has shown to be feasible. It would hinder the development of new forms of contraception, such as vaccines. And it would prevent any significant improvement in the treatment of infertility."
  I draw attention also to comments that I believe have been forwarded to hon. Members by the Royal Society. They were published at the same time as the White Paper. It says:
  "The Royal Society believes it is essential that research, under proper control, should be allowed to continue. Much embryological research, including that related to in vitro

  947
  fertilisation, is carried out with animals. However, one cannot extrapolate safety the results of studies in animals to the human context … It would be irresponsible and clinically unacceptable to replace in the womb fertilized human eggs that have been subjected to novel procedures or tests."
  On genetic disease, the Royal Society said:
  "Currently, the only way of preventing the transmission of genetic disease is to test fetuses at 8-16 weeks gestation and to abort those that are affected. Research on human embryology has offered the prospect of testing developing eggs at an early stage to indentify those that will be affected by, or those that carry, serious genetic disease, such as Duchenne musclular dystrophy or cystic fibrosis, and of replacing in the womb only those found free from such defective genes … Legislation prohibiting further research on human embryological material would, at worst, altogether prevent certain advances in medical treatment of great potential benefit to the infertile or those carrying serious genetic disorders. At best, it would suspend such advances before their full development … The Royal Society therefore strongly supports the continuation of research under the conditions specified".
  That is important.
  The Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain has also implored us to allow such research to continue. Its director, Paul Walker, a practising Roman Catholic, believes that that is vital for those who suffer from muscular dystrophy. Mencap implores us to allow the research to continue, as does the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust, the Genetic Interest Group, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Medical Research Council. Research is supported by a proportion of the clergy, although I accept that among the clergy, as among the medical profession, opinion is divided.
  The Bill has vital implications for 250,000 couples who cannot have children. The IVF programme has helped families in Britain to have children; there are over 1,000 such children. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) referred to the pride that he takes in his godchild who was brought into the world by means of that technique. Had there been restrictive sections in the legislation a generation ago, those who are now happily running round would not be here. We cannot have it both ways. We need acceptable research. A restrictive clause would stop research into improving contraception, thus avoiding later abortions of unwanted pregnancies. I join those who regret the fact that the Government intend to introduce an amendment that will allow abortion to be linked with that question.
  As for research that has led to exciting breakthroughs in recent months and years, may I refer to muscular dystrophy? The gene that causes muscular dystrophy has been identified. Within the next two or three years, we shall be able to select pre-embryos that do not have the defective gene. That will allow healthy boys and girls to be born to those at risk. That is a tremendous move forward.
  I quote from Professor Bobrow, one of the country's leading authorities on the clinical genetics of muscular dystrophy:
  "I believe that pre-embryo biopsy for the detection of Duchenne muscular dystrophy will be possible within two to three years. The genetic techniques will be developed by then; what will be needed is time to validate the safety of embryo biopsy."
  A large number of people suffer from cystic fibrosis. Those of us who are in touch with the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust and receive its newsletter will have seen that the March newsletter is headed, in red, "At last we've found the gene!" It says:
  "I am sure that as a supporter of the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust you were delighted with the news that at last
  948
  we have found the gene … Now at last we can embark upon the next stage in our quest to understand and finally conquer Cystic Fibrosis."
  The trust's newspaper carries similar exciting prospects.
  In those circumstances, where hope is being offered to families who otherwise would not have it, how can we take on ourselves the responsibility of shutting the door of hope when we are so close to seeing progress being made! Can the House, in all conscience, even contemplate a legal ban on such marvellous pioneering work? How can we ban essential research of his type? Are we so certain that we are absolutely correct? Are we to say to our constituents, "Our children are all right. We are sorry that yours are suffering from a crippling disablement, but we are prepared to legislate to reduce your hope of being helped by the medical profession." I realise that all the answers may not be immediately forthcoming. Some may take years. Surely, however, the message is:
  "Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
  7.15 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I intend to concentrate on the ethical aspects of the debate. When the alternative clauses are debated—and subsequently, I hope, the abortion clauses—detailed arguments will be put forward. We shall then hear that opinion is not unanimous among the medical, scientific or theological interest groups. There is disunity among embryologists as to whether the further destructive use of embryos will improve in vitro fertilisation or whether it will make a material contribution towards finding a cure.
  The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), was right to point not to the words of the pro-life movement, or to those of the Roman Catholic Church, or to those of the major interest groups on our side of the argument, but to the words of the pro-research scientists themselves in a document that they circulated to right hon. and hon. Members in an effort to persuade us to support research.
  The document said that research on embryos is not and never has been concerned with pure research, or with the treatment of chromosomal disorders. What worries me is what I regard as the cruel deceit—probably accidental but nevertheless thoroughly perpetrated on the parents of children who suffer from highly distressing disorders and diseases—that this research will come up with a cure for their children. If that is case, the pro-research scientists should retract what they have said and show us how such a cure is to be achieved.
  Another cruel deceit that is being perpetrated is that those who oppose embryo research would ban IVF treatment. We never have and never will.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: My wife and I had a serious fertility problem, as a result of which we went through a successful IVF process. There is considerable evidence that the IVF success rate does not depend on destructive experimentation. Statistics in this country and evidence from IVF clinics in South Australia, where experimentation is illegal, point to the fact that it is the number of times that the procedure has been carried out that is the key factor determining the success rate, not destructive experimentation.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That demonstrates something else: that there is no

  949
  unanimity of opinion among infertile couples as to whether the research is acceptable, or even among the handicapped or the parents of the handicapped.
  I now refer to the ethical issues dominating the debate and the use of language. We are told that a child of 22 weeks' gestation fighting for life in an incubator with all the resources of medical science being poured in to save it is a baby, but a child of identical age and development in the womb where we cannot see it is a foetus. The difference between what we call a baby and what we call a foetus is that we can see one and we cannot see the other, and if we inflicted pain on one, we could see it.
  The same use of language is applied to the earliest stages of human existence. How right my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point was when he said that not once in all the Warnock deliberations was the word "pre-embryo" mentioned. It is a sanitising term to cover up what we are doing.
  When the Bill was debated in the other place, we heard endless terms to describe human life—two-cell zygote, a conceptus. The Archbishop of York chose the term conceptus because, he said, it is buried in the obscurity of the Latin language. The Archbishop of York is rather sexist—why not a concepta? Perhaps we can get over the problem in the traditional way favoured by many Opposition Members—we could call it a conceptus person because it is a person.
  While we are on the subject of personhood, the Archbishop said that all life was a continuous process from fertilisation to death and that we are all processes. It makes one wonder what the advent lessons must be like in York minster. Perhaps they would go something like this: "And Mary, when the angel had departed from her, found she was with process, and her cousin said unto her, 'Lo, the process in my womb leaped with joy when I heard thy voice". Are we now getting down to such silly language?
  If we take the Archbishop at face value and agree that we are all processes and that there is no single voice as to when life starts, we cannot say that personhood occurs here or the soul enters there. We cannot say any of those things if life is a process. Is not the best reason of all for not interfering at any point the fact that we do not know when personhood begins? Did not the Archbishop score a spectacular own goal?
  Another misuse of language was exemplified in the speech about handicap by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). Of course all parents want their children to be born without a handicap, but there is all the difference in the world between saying that we want children to be born without handicap and that we do not want the handicapped child to be born. What most distresses me is that, when we were considering the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), and at any stage during the passage of the Bill that we are discussing, a handicapped person could switch on the radio or television and hear politicians glibly discussing whether he had the right to be born.
  We would not insult any racial or religious group in that way, so how dare we treat handicapped people as a race apart and single them out for insult? The most profoundly difficult experience that I had during the passage of the Bill unsuccessfully introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was explaining to handicapped
  950
  people why we had made an exemption for severe handicap and why we had agreed that they should be treated as second-class citizens. We shall go through that again when we table our abortion amendments, because, to meet the fears of many right hon. and hon. Members, we have agreed to exempt handicap from any restrictions.
  I congratulate the Government on their great courage in at long last providing an opportunity to resolve the abortion issue. We are talking about life before birth, life up to 14 days and after 14 days. It is a ludicrous law that says that personhood occurs at 14 days and human life needs protection, but that from the 15th day to the 28th week abortion is perfectly all right. We need to examine that muddled law, and when, as the Government have courageously decided, the House debates abortion, we shall at long last apply the will of the majority of the House, which has never yet been defeated but which has frequently been frustrated.
  We all heard what the hon. Member for Barking said. She did not say that she hoped that the abortion clauses would be defeated—she knows that they will not be defeated, so she said that she hoped that they would not be taken. That is the last dying hope of a minority that has persistently misused the tactics and the procedures of the House to frustrate the majority.
  7.25 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) referred to the other place and the concept of a process. There were some outside the House who wondered whether the experiments on primates to find out the validity of life and humanity might begin in the upper House.
  The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said that there should not be the same protection for a human being who has been born as for one in the womb. In that maligned book, the Old Testament, where we are told the laws are cruel, there is clear protection for the unborn; rather interestingly it is given in the context of the restrictive law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We heard those arguments deployed tonight and it is amazing how we run away from what will happen.
  The pre-embryo or conceptus who has been discovered to have a defective gene would automatically be disposed of because there is no way that it can be brought to term. Therefore, I join in giving the Bill a guarded welcome. Using the ecclesiastical terminology that has already occurred in the debate, like the curate's egg, it is good in parts. I am not too sure how we are going to separate the bad parts from the good ones without making it a completely different Bill. I pledge my support for those who seek to improve the Bill by providing guidelines for the nation.
  It is good that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland, as it allows representatives from Northern Ireland to take a full part in debating it. I believe that I reflect a general view throughout Northern Ireland, irrespective of political parties and religious persuasion. We ask for the legislation to show respect for life.
  I take up a point which may have been missed. We have heard quotations from scientific bodies that support the concept of research and experimentation. Recently I spoke to a doctor who told me about an experiment in psychology which may be being conducted on us. It is

  951
  certainly applied in places such as Oxford street by street traders who are accompanied by people who put up their hands to buy straight away so that the others who are gathered round will also buy. The people around do not realise that the trader is with an accomplice. If they see a policeman they disappear; if no policeman turns up, the accomplice returns the goods that he has bought for the salesman to peddle again.
  That approach is used to convince people to do something that they would not do normally. Let us take the example of a product being sold. I have been told of people being shown a film in which someone appeared wearing a blue sweater. At the end of the film they were asked, "What colour sweater was the person wearing?" A number of people who were secretly involved said, "It was red." When the first half dozen people said "Red", the others became doubtful and said "Red" although they had perceived it as blue. I am not trying to make a political point by using those two colours.
  Over the past months, the media have been bombarding the nation and the House with facts and statistics, but rarely have they featured a scientist, a politician or a disabled person to convince the House and the nation of a view which, in their heart of hearts, they do not wish us to hold.
  In that context, I was interested by some figures from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal Society. The statistics from those two bodies on the incidence of disorders in newborn babies is about the same. The Royal Society claims that it is one in 20 and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said that it is 5 per cent. That works out at 50 per 1,000, which all hon. Members will agree is a horrifying figure. When I checked the figures I discovered that both organisations were exaggerating. One must ask why. I believe that it is to hype the argument in favour of passing the Bill and to allow experimentation.
  It is said that research will help to prevent genetic disorders, but the figures given by the Royal Society and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are for congenital diseases. If one examines their figures carefully, one discovers that they are exaggerated I have them here, and Professor Hubert Campbell, who for many years was the medical statistician representing England and Wales at the World Health Organisation, has checked them for me. Rather than the 50 per cent. suggested by those two bodies, 15 per cent., and at the outside 20 per cent., of deaths are due to genetic diseases; that figure conforms with a report by the Royal College of Physicians, which shows that of children born with congenital abnormalities 15 to 20 per cent. suffer from genetic disorders. There are difficulties in obtaining accurate figures because a high percentage of those deaths are from cardiovascular problems.
  Why should the professional bodies exaggerate the figures? I am not suggesting that they have a vested financial interest, because many of them are genuinely concerned and want to do the best for patients and others. Many years ago I asked about experimentation and the sale of organs, but time and again I received bland answers from Departments saying that they had no statistics and that such things were not going on. One answer that I received was, "Customs and Excise do not come across this because they are not asked to look for it."
  952
  I stand where I stood with my right hon. Friend Enoch Powell, not against experimentation but for the experiments being on an embryo for a particular person's own good and that there should not be blanket research.
  Ian Donald drew attention to the fact that, like the rest of us, embryos develop differently. It might take between 13 and 16 days for an embryo to develop, but if there is such confusion at that stage, how do we differentiate? We all know that, once the Bill is enacted, its supporters will press for an extension of the time limit.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: The speeches that have most impressed me so far were those born of a little humility. That includes the fine and balanced speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, on which I congratulate him.
  For others, the debate has been about the nature of certainty. As a teacher, I suggested to my pupils that if someone said, "with respect", they meant exactly the opposite; that if someone said, "Of course I am not prejudiced, but", it was usually a preface to a whopping lump of dogma; and that, similarly, those who proclaimed what the truth is mean that they believe it to be so. People on both sides of this issue feel passionately about it. I hope that, as the Bill progresses through the House, both sides will maintain respect.
  I declare my interest and credentials for taking part in the debate and for supporting the Government's proposals. First, I am the parent of three strapping children. The most important thing to me is my family life. Our first son was born with lethal disorders, the result of a chromosome abnormality. He lived for only a few days, but long enough to be loved and to be baptised. I owe it to Jamie to support this legislation, from which much good will come.
  My second credential is as a Christian. It is quite clear that there is no definitive Christian viewpoint or imperative in this debate. It is a matter of difficult personal judgment. I sought the advice of the Bishop of Salisbury, and I am grateful to him for it. Without claiming that he supports what I believe to be right, he told me that, if he were faced with voting on this issue, the arguments that would weigh most strongly with him were those on embryo selection. He points out that, when nature spontaneously aborts a good many embryos, it is hard to believe that to do so deliberately for good reason is contrary to God's mind.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Key: I will not stop: I have only 10 minutes to make my speech.
  We cannot duck the issue that some people feel that we are saying that it would be better if disabled people had not been born. The Archdeacon of Sarum advises me that the argument is a deliberate muddying of the waters. He says that one could equally say that any attempt to discourage illegitimacy is an insult to those born out of wedlock. The fact is that, if we could launch a life with or without handicaps, it seems morally better to choose the latter. The Bishop of Salisbury said to me: "Many parents must pray for a disease-free child. When we are given the power to bring that about ourselves, what does it say about our prayer if we refuse to use that power?"

  953
  Clearly, rejection of an embryo earlier than 14 days is preferable to aborting a foetus much later on. If uncontrolled, that could be used to justify abortion and embryo selection, which, as the Bishop of Salisbury told me, was one mark of Nazism and would be profoundly repugnant to Christian tradition. But the Bill is all about control, and it recognises that such activities are unacceptable.
  After much thought and inquiry, I have reached the conclusion that it is not possible for me to accept that human life begins at the moment of conception—for two reasons. First, I regard the egg and the sperm as human and part of the continuum of creation. Individual lives begin with chemistry and reach their fulfilment in mystery. My second reason is the chemistry of the matter. If we believe in life starting at an instant called conception, we ignore man's growing understanding of molecular biology and genetics and all that goes on not only at a human biological level but at a sub-species level in the building blocks of life.
  I shall return to that, but my third credential is that I am a member of the Medical Research Council. I am not a scientist but am one of the lay members whose job is to ensure that the feet of the distinguished scientists are in occasional contact with the ground. The MRC's reasons for suppporting research on pre-implementation embryos are well rehearsed: to improve in vitro fertilisation techniques; to help reduce the number of abortions in those who are at risk of passing on serious genetic diseases to children; to help us understand and prevent miscarriages; and to assist in the development of simpler, safer and more effective contraception. I have listened to the contrary arguments, and will continue to do so, but I remain unconvinced by them.
  The Bill is also about freedom of conscience. It does not seek to impose sanctions on those who think that research is wrong. It goes to great lengths to define consent. As Lord Hailsham put it in another place, those who would impose an absolute prohibition should ask themselves, what kind of right, in a free and liberal democracy, do they think that they have to say no to a highly responsible group of people working for the benefit of humanity and subject to the authority of Parliament? Scientists and clinicians are not pro-death—nor am I, nor is any one who supports the Bill. Who hijacked this term "pro-life", anyway? I take the view that we cannot undo enlightenment.
  I have a word of warning for the scientific community: they do not realise how far ahead they are of the rest of us. There is so much that we do not know about the human brain and problems such as schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease and slow viruses such as bovine spongiform ecephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. There is so much that we are beginning to understand, and the rate of that understanding is increasing rapidly. The scientists must not leave us behind. There is a massive job of education to be done.
  I have referred to the amazing growth of understanding of the molecular basis of life. We must come to terms with the inevitable scientific progress. There is no absolute right or absolute wrong—we must make a judgment. I urge the House to judge that we should not turn our backs on scientists in Britain. Make no mistake—the work will go
  954
  on in other countries, with or without us, and it will be without the controls that Parliament is seeking to exercise in this country. If we wash our hands of this issue, we will make it harder next time we are asked to make judgments about scientific issues, and they will probably be concerned with genetics. Personally, the more I see and understand the way that science serves mankind, the stronger grows my Christian faith.
  Salisbury has sent Members of Parliament to Westminster since 1275—we take a long-term view of things. When Parliaments or rulers have sought to impose bans on science or to legislate against progress, they have always come to grief. To vote against the Bill tonight would be to marginalise Parliament, at a time when we have never needed Parliament more. We would trumpet our timidity and lack of vision with a penny whistle. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I have good news for Members—I do not intend to go into the technicalities of pre-implantation embryos or pro-life. I want to talk about the issues as I see them and, equally important, as my constituents see them.
  When the Bill was first discussed, I made a conscious decision as a Member of Parliament because of my experience when I became a Member in 1987 when the abortion issue was raised. I knew from that experience how contentious it was. Some politicians may tend to go to ground when such issues are discussed, but I decided to take this one up front. I called two special three-hour surgeries in my constituency on two consecutive days to take representations from my constituents. It was an enjoyable and enlightening experience.
  I met 54 constituents who had come to lobby me either for or against. Many Christian groups on both sides of the argument lobbied me. We must put something to rest: one is not a better Christian if one is for or against the Bill. No one should be able to kidnap the issue and say that he is a better Christian because he takes a particular point of view. I am envious of the faith of other Christians. My experience in life leads me to believe that a person should be judged on his Christianity by the way in which he lives his life, cares for his neighbour and behaves towards his fellow men and women. That is a better yardstick by which to judge whether someone is a Christian.
  I should like to thank many of the individuals who came to see me. I had the excellent experience of meeting the local branch of a national Christian group, CARE—Christian Action Research and Education. Through those surgeries, I was able to develop a relationship with the groups that I had not hitherto been able to develop. Although we did not necessarily agree on the issues that we debated, we had mutual respect and there was understanding of each side of the argument. I hope that other hon. Members will have that experience. Politicians should not drop this contentious issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) sought support from Opposition Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) pointed out that there would be a free vote, and so it should be. I have been active in Labour politics for a

  955
  considerable number of years—sometimes it seems longer. This has always been an issue of personal conscience and I have always believed that that is what it should be.
  When I am asked to vote against embryo research, I must take on board some of the issues that are put to me to consider—for example, the sanctity of life, the rights of a 14-day embryo and morality. Like the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) I tend to duck when I hear people starting from a moral standpoint, because usually what follows is not as moral as they would have us believe. We have been told that the legislation will lead to uncontrolled research. References have been made to the Nazis during the war and their horrific activities, but that tends to overstate the case.
  We hear also about strong Christian faith. I shall tell the House of an experience that I had in my constituency involving an elder of a local church, who said, "Please, Mr. Hood, support the Bill. I have a daughter whose ovaries will not develop because of a disease. Her only chance of a normal life is to benefit from this research by having an implant." He then said something that has struck me ever since: "I am a Christian. My faith in God is such that if He does not mean it to happen, it will not and if He does mean it to happen, it will." I mulled over those words by a chap whom one would walk past in the street. Such was his Christian faith that he could make that strong commitment.
  Within minutes, a minister in a church in my constituency came to me and said, "Mr. Hood, I am a Christian and you will expect me to be against the Bill." I said that I did not expect him to be against the Bill because he was a Christian and told him of my experience a few minutes earlier with the elder of a different church. The minister was dumbstuck, as I had been, when I threw it back at him. I told him about the elder whose faith in God was such that he believed that, if something was not meant to happen, it would not happen. The minister was taken aback. I am sure that what I told him did not influence his view, but it was well worth saying nevertheless.
  I do not think that there are any easy options. There is no ducking the issue of abortion, either, and I hope that I shall not try. I must be objective. I must accept that I live not in the world as we all want it to be but in the real world. I hear people talking about what we should do to help the handicapped, the disadvantaged and the disabled, and such objectives are perfectly legitimate and honourable. But whether their chance is one in 10 or one in 100, what should we say to an infertile couple when they come to us and say, "Mr. Hood, please give us a chance to enjoy the happiness and warmth that a child in our family will give us"? When given the choice, I do not have the courage to deny them that chance.
  7.50 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: In case the impression begins to take hold in this debate that if one has had the misfortune to have a blighted child and to have lost it, one must be in favour of the Bill, I will mention at the outset that I had two such children and lost two such children, but that I remain strongly opposed to experimentation on human beings at any stage in their development. That is certainly not because I have no feelings or understanding for the couple desperate to have a child. I have every sympathy for couples who find themselves in that position.
  956
  I would argue, however, that experimentation is certainly not the only way to find out about infertility. It is still most questionable whether experimentation on human embyros can tell us anything at all about infertility. How can an embyro that is totally unrelated to a man and a women tell us anything at all about why that man and that woman cannot conceive? I find that an odd proposition. I suppose that someone will say, "Ah, but it could be the couple's embyro." I do not think that it can, because if they have produced an embyro, they are not infertile. The argument does not stand up.
  I warmly commend the idea of all possible help being given to couples who desperately want a child, but if IVF is not very successful and can lead to ovarian cysts, answers should be sought where they can be found and that is certainly not by experimentation on unborn babies at the first stage of development. Surely it is true, and all of us must recognise, that the only way in which people can explain experimentation away or accept it is by saying, "We are talking about the first stages of development."
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the curate's egg. There is also such a thing as the housemaid's baby, which was "only a small one". The argument that is being used in this case is similar. People say, "It is only a small embryo, in the first stage of development, so let us not worry about it." Nevertheless, it is a serious proposition that we should use a human being for experimentation at any stage in his or her development. I hope that the House will accept that. Then does not the House at least have the duty to be sure that embryo experimentation is necessary? If it is a serious matter, let us a least have proof that it is necessary.
  A great deal of information has been sent to hon. Members from doctors on both sides of the argument. If 99 per cent. of the doctors had said: "We must do this: it is the only way," the House might have been in a different position, but that has not happened. The medical profession seems to me to be divided more or less equally. One erudite professor wrote to me:
  "The claims that experimentation on human embryos will contribute importantly to a knowledge of human reproduction, the prevention of infertility and congenital handicap are false."
  Certainly there are things that we need to know about preventable infertility. There is such a thing as a blocked tube, for instance. A woman may suffer from pelvic inflammatory disease, and there are many other complaints that may be to blame, but none of their causes can be discovered by experimentation on the embryo. So many of the arguments of would-be experimenters collapse when we put them under the microscope. They say that an embryo is not a human being at that stage in its development. If it is not a human being, how can it give answers to problems facing the human race? Either it is a human being or it is not. They say that embryo experimentation is the only way forward, but genetic research has been going on for years without using embryos and it will continue whether we give or withhold permission to use them.
  The would-be experimenters argue that nature wastes so many embryos; it is always flinging them around like bits of confetti, so what does it matter? But nature wastes a whole lot: it wastes children, teenagers and more mature people. Thousands and thousands of people all over the world die prematurely for one reason or another. If it is argued that because nature wastes, we are entitled to use

  957
  what it wastes for experimentation, why should we stop at embryos? If we are dealing with what nature wastes, there is a lot more going than an embryo or two here or there. If one believes that because nature, fate or God wastes human beings by bringing them an early death, we can put them to use for experimentation, we are on a very slippery slope indeed.
  If Parliament gives its blessing to experiments up to 14 days, the scientists will not stop there. Already many authorities, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists through to geneticists such as Professor Robert Edwards, Professor Williamson, and the Council for Science and Society, have said that they would not be satisfied with 14 days. Once the principle is established, embryos will continue to be used, because it is perfectly obvious that the older an unborn child is, the more useful it will be to the scientists.
  If the principle is breached, there is no escaping the consequences. Once one accepts that a human being, at whatever stage in its development, can be used for scientific experiment, the rubicon has been crossed and there is no going back. It will be 20 days, then 50 days, and then six months. Then we shall include wasted born babies who are mentally or physically handicapped, who will be considered no use and a drag on society. Did not someone once call them unproductive mouths? Once we say that it is perfectly feasible to allow human beings to finish up on a slab, being experimented on by scientists, there is no end to it.
  How will the present proposed limit of 14 days be enforced? Will an inspector go into a laboratory and say, "Stop. Wait a minute. You have had 13 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes. You will never finish that in one minute, so you must not do it." How do we seriously suggest that such a rule will be policed? How will we ensure that nowhere in any laboratory does experimentation take place beyond 14 days?
  Many medical men are against what is proposed. Many handicapped people—never mind the parents of handicapped children—are against it. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) advocated how sad it is to be handicapped and that it is much better that such people are not born. I cannot support that.
  Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: I have only about a minute left.
  Mr. Wigley: I bet.
  Dame Jill Knight: Well, the hon. Gentleman had better be quick.
  Mr. Wigley: I did not say what the hon. Lady said I said. She should know that I love my boys with their handicap and all. No one can take that away from me. She should be ashamed of herself for suggesting that.
  Dame Jill Knight: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that I said that. I did not. I said that his words amounted to him saying how much better it would be to find a handicapped foetus at an early stage and get rid of it. That is exactly what he said. That does not mean to say that he does not love his children. It means that he thinks that it is much better to get rid of a handicapped foetus. I cannot agree with that.
  958
  Even Church leaders have spoken out against that, although the Church is so divided these days that half the churchmen believe one thing and half the other. Perhaps we should not take too much notice of what the Church says. In the end, it comes down to an ethical and moral belief that human life is sacred, that none of us has the right to destroy a human being and that permitting experiments on embryos that are judged unwanted is the severest threat to human life and values since the passage of the Abortion Act 1967.
  8 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. There have been many fine and eloquent contributions today, based on science and morality, and I thought that perhaps I should keep away from those subjects because I am not as competent as others to deal with them.
  My attitude to the Bill is probably simplistic, as it is based on human dignity. That is a simple phrase, but it is difficult to define. Where the Bill enhances the prospects for human dignity, I support it. However, where it denigrates human dignity, I withdraw my support from it.
  The Bill has two elements—fertilisation and experiments on embryos. I put those elements to the test of human dignity, and I found that one element complemented it and the other was diametrically opposed to it. When we talk about human dignity, we are talking about human life and all its attributes. I do not care whether that human life is 80 years old, eight years old, or eight days old. It is still human life with the dignity that I want to attribute to all human life.
  I support with great compassion the in vitro fertilisation of any childless couple because that makes a contribution to human dignity—the dignity of the parents and no doubt of the child which will be loved all the more for its rarity and specialness. However, when considering the part of the Bill dealing with embryology and experimentation, it does not matter whether that life is 80 years, eight years or eight days old. The same human dignity and the same precious concept applies that I was taught to apply to my fellow man and to my neighbour, whatever age he may be. According to that principle, I am totally opposed to experimentation.
  Although I am opposed to that experimentation, I have the greatest sympathy for many of the arguments in its favour, which the exponents hope in some way will expedite the day when mental and physical disability will be wiped out. We all look forward to that day and we all support that concept. However, we are concerned about the way in which we achieve that end. That is the only point on which we will differ.
  In all the scientific arguments that have been made this afternoon for experimentation and the analysis of the human embryo, no one has said that research should not take place. We are saying that research into the human embryo is not the only way forward, and that it is one of the most dangerous ways forward in terms of human dignity.
  Many benefits can be obtained from other methods of research, as is clear from much of the propaganda that has been sent to hon. Members from both sides of the argument. In those circumstances, we must tread warily. Having listened to the arguments today, I cast my mind back to the debates on abortion. I appreciate that we have

  959
  been exhorted not to confuse the two issues, but how can I not do so? On the one hand, I am told that we must stop experiments at 14 days, because there is something sancrosanct about that embryo. However, we can kill that embryo months later. There is no logic, morality or science in that argument. There is certainly no human dignity there either.
  On that basis, I ask hon. Members to consider the pro-life argument—well, pro-life may not be the right phrase; perhaps pro-human dignity would be better. We must learn from history, whether we like it or not. On every occasion in history when human dignity was denied, catastrophe followed for the society concerned.
  This afternoon, people have been accused of being emotive in their approach to the subject. An emotive phrase continues to occure to me. There is a daily massacre of the innocents in this country. If I were to say the holy innocents, I would be accused of being religious so I left out the adjective. However, I believe that there is a total contradiction between killing a babe in the mother's womb at 22 weeks and doing all in one's power to preserve it in an incubator at the same age. That is the contradiction in the scientific approach.
  We all know that once the floodgates are opened—I do not mean that in an emotive way, because there will not be a sudden gushing outwards—there will be a steady trickle from 14 days to 15, to 16 and to 20. There will be no way of controlling it, and in that sense I oppose completely the idea of the so-called committee of control. I support those hon. Members who have said that the committee of control must be directly and immediately accountable to the representatives of the people of this country in this House and not by way of a self-regulating quango that can distance itself and its responsibility from the Minister, who must presumably answer to the House.
  I am not speaking today for the sake of the record. I am representing my constituents, in the hope of persuading and converting, and in the hope of having a logical argument so that people will accept that the Bill is not the way forward to prevent mental or physical disability or to prevent infertility. All the arguments this afternoon have been negative. They have sought to increase the efficiency of abortion and to terminate unwanted and disabled embryos. They were all negative, not positive. I hope that I have represented as fairly as I can the people who elected me to this place. I certainly represent the broad viewpont of my party.
  8.9 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: About 14 months have passed since I spoke in a similar debate on this subject. In the meantime, work has obviously continued in in vitro fertilisation and embryology. I get the impression from today's debate that, whatever our different viewpoints and whatever the charm of having less legislation in this place, we want to make a non-partisan decision.
  As a physician and a barrister, I have tried to assess the implications of an issue that is daunting in all respects. We all know the strength of feeling in the country, and it is all the more so in a constituency such as mine in Wimbledon, where the Christian tradition is very much alive and the attendance at churches of all denominations is unusually
  960
  and agreeably high. I have thus consulted widely on an ecumenical basis, and a useful exchange of views has resulted.
  I am well aware that, when one talks to people who are much better qualified than oneself on these profound theological and ethical issues, one feels the humbler for that. Having never worked directly in embryology, I have also consulted medical colleagues and have visited several units in which such work has been carried out under the guidelines set by the voluntary licensing authority, now the interim licensing authority. I pay tribute to a uniform standard of excellence and responsibility that reflects the very best of medical tradition in this country. As far as I know—it is confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—following the Warnock report there have been no breaches of the rules, which have been followed voluntarily.
  That leads to the question whether we need the legislation. A senior Roman Catholic in my constituency, who certainly would not agree with many of my views, said:
  "I am not necessarily against research as such, but the public needs reassurance."
  I cannot improve on those wise words. The need for reassurance, both generally and to prevent such practices that have been mentioned today, such as cloning, genetic manipulation or the inappropriate use of spare embryos, becomes all the more acute as science continues to push the frontiers of knowledge.
  To me, such advances are progress, but they have obviously caused unease historically, particularly when work has been carried out in connection with human life. Indeed, those who are most uneasy—and I do not belittle their feelings—tend to use the word "experimentation" rather than the neutral word "research", which is less emotive. The law must recognise changed circumstances and get the right balance.
  What are the two principal issues that we are debating? The first is assistance to sub-fertile couples to have children. Surely few would object to medical science offering help to the 10 per cent. or so couples falling within that category. Although the success rate has improved markedly, there is still an enormous way to go, and such advances will be halted if the House so decides. I accept that current procedures could continue even if research could not, but why reduce the hopes of such couples for their future happiness?
  It was put to me by a priest in my constituency that couples do not necessarily have the right to have children. I have a certain sympathy with that viewpoint. The assumption that we have rights in all sorts of matters has become subject to justifiable criticism. Certainly, the 25 per cent. of parents in 1988—the figures were published last week—who had children outside marriage, compared with the 10 per cent. 10 years earlier, had not exercised their responsibilities. However, the vast majority of sub-fertile couples could not, by a process of self-selection monitored by the medical profession, be better motivated and more worthy of any help that medical science can offer.
  The second issue is the early detection of profound mental and physical handicaps in children. I use the word "detection" rather than "prevention". First, I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) that there is no cure as yet—and I emphasis the word "yet." Secondly, I would not presume to judge the happiness that is given and received by parents

  961
  of handicapped children. We are all aware of the amazing achievements of many handicapped children against all the odds. I am not an advocate of eugenics per se. Parents should be consulted if they so wish, and thereafter it is their choice whether to seek further information and to decide whether a pregnancy should continue.
  I cannot help wondering how many parents would decide to proceed if they knew that their child would be born handicapped. Some diagnoses can now be made as early as within 48 hours of fertilisation, and assessment can continue while the fertilised ovum is frozen. Placental biopsies and amniocenteses which are more traumatic and are carried out late in pregnnancy, will decrease in importance, and the incidence of late abortions, at whatever date the House subsequently decides, will decrease, to universal relief. Further safeguards in ILA guidelines have reduced the incidence of multiple births, which clearly threaten a safe birth by the mother and also the viability of under-sized babies.
  I refer now to a question that I cannot answer but which all hon. Members will have to attempt to answer, as some have already tried: when does life start? On one side of the spectrum there are those who say that, in itself, the sperm or ovum has life. More commonly, it is asserted that the moment of fertilisation is the start of life. Even the definition of fertilisation is inexact. Is it the time of the penetration of the ovum by the sperm or, to be pedantic, is it to be the two-cell stage when the two genetic materials mix properly for the first time?
  Other faiths, in my constituency and elsewhere, date life from the time of implantation. I was going to venture into a concept that I am not even certain is produced in the English dictionary—ensoulment. I shall desist from discussing that matter tonight, but I leave the House with the thought that identical twins presumably have different souls. We do not know when souls enter identical twins —it is a complex theory—but it can logically be argued that one cannot have a soul until the 14th day, which is the day on which the first neurological tissue is laid down. [Interruption.] I recognise that I shall not carry the House with me.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my hon. Friend identical twins? I have.
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I suggest that they do not have identical souls.
  The House should bear it in mind that no fertilised egg has yet been cultured in vitro beyond nine days. Whether or not the House likes it—I suspect that many people do not—there is also a long legal precedent for productions of conception receiving relative degrees of protection. That is a long-established principle of British law.
  I have sought to show that there are few if any absolutes in this contentious issue. If reassurance is in the air, Warnock provides it. We cannot turn the clock back, but we could stop it and, by stopping it, stop the legitimate aspirations of those couples who wish to develop their own happiness within the context of the family. With further research into sub-fertility—male or female—and genetic disorders, many more people will benefit from advances made as costs decrease and accessibility, which at the moment is very limited, increases. I recognise that there
  962
  will be wide differences in hon. Members' standpoints, but I trust that we will respect each others views and will vote to replace semantics and scruples with science and sense.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not wish to detain the House for too long. I welcome the Bill and the debate, which is about a fundamental issue. For many years we have debated the science of embryology and how it can or cannot help people. For most of us, science in this century, and even in this decade, has moved ahead by leaps and bounds. It cannot be right that science should move on in industry and not in other aspects of our lives. As we know that science can both create and destroy, we must ensure at all times that it is regulated and controlled.
  The Bill is about very fundamental issues: at stake is the right to make decisions about parenthood. I believe that it is only through controlled pre-embryo research that choices will be extended to those who are infertile or who carry a gene disorder.
  We must all know or have met a constituent or have a colleague, friend or family member whose life has been scarred because they are unable to have children. We may also know those who have been fortunate enough to have been the recipient of treatment that has resulted in a much-wanted child: treatment that would never have been available to them without pre-embryo research. Some hon. Members have questioned whether that has been of benefit to people. I find that incredible. Since the first birth as a result of in vitro fertilisation—Louise Brown in Oldham in 1978—thousands of children have been born to people in this and many other countries who would otherwise never have had the opportunity of parenthood.
  But in vitro fertilisation is still successful in only 10 to 15 per cent. of treatments. For the sake of the estimated 275,000 sufferers of infertility who could benefit from IVF, it is vital that further research is conducted that will improve the present programmes. There are many known causes of infertility in men and women, and there are many that are at present unknown. Only 10 per cent. of infertile men can currently be helped either by surgery or hormone treatment, yet infertility is as common in men as in women. This is not just a women's issue, although women Members will have both opened and closed the debate for the Opposition.
  One in five pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Although we cannot stop miscarriages occurring, controlled science has meant that miscarriages are better understood. However, without research little hope of a solution to these problems can be offered. Among the many organisations that have sent us their views on this Bill I, like all hon. Members, have received correspondence from the National Association for the Childless. The testimony of such people is one of the most powerful reasons to support licensed experimentation on pre-embryos.
  However, it is not only the infertile who will benefit from the continuation of the research. Although we cannot say that we have had great success in sorting out the problems of hereditary genetic disorders in families in the past five years, I am sure that in time it will be possible to screeen pre-embryos from those who are at risk of passing on a genetic disease. It will enable those people to establish pregnancies that are not affected by the disease, rather than have to make the agonising decision of whether to have an abortion after weeks of pregnancy.

  963
  The case for this research to continue was made to me most effectively by a couple in my constituency whom I have contacted again and who have allowed me to share with the House their experience. They wrote:
  "We are the parents of two sufferers of Retinitis Pigmentosa, one of over 4,000 disorders that are genetically transmitted. RP is a disease of the retina of the eye. It can, in the worst cases lead to total loss of sight in youth and is the second greatest cause of blindness in the country. 25,000 families are affected. There is no treatment, no cure and no way of preventing its transmission from one generation to another …
  Scientists have recently begun to identify some of the genes that carry RP. In a year or two it should be possible for parents who are known to be at risk of having an affected child to fertilise embryos in vitro, test for the genetic defect, and have inserted in to the mother's womb only a defect-free embryo. This procedure would provide, for couples who want to use it, a means of ensuring that they can have children in the certainty that they will not risk passing on a hereditary disease, a dread which haunts everybody who suffers from one."
  That couple then comment specifically on a clause on which hon. Members will have to take a decision on the Floor of the House if the rest of the business goes through. They state:
  "The version of the clause that would ban all research into pre-embryos would render impossible the kind of procedure described above. It would be a terrible blow to those of us who have come to hope that it might be feasible to end the transmission of the condition that so malignly affects us. Can it conceivably be right for the nation, as represented in Parliament, to deprive so many of its citizens of one of the main avenues of progress on a matter so fundamental"
  I said at the beginning of my speech that the legislation involves fundamental issues. I am a proud father of three healthy children and, since the Bill was given its Second Reading in another place, I have become a grandfather. I deeply believe that it would be wrong to deny people the right to have children. We need controlled science to help in that.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. W. Benyon: I, too, welcome the Bill. The last time such legislation was discussed in the House, I urged my hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Social Services, to speed up such legislation. The Government have been as good as their word.
  One reason why I feel so strongly about the Bill is that the present position is untenable. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) was right to draw attention to that in his intervention in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I also welcome the timetable arrangements which, I hope, we shall pass at the end of the debate. I wish that such arrangements were in force for many other pieces of legislation.
  Try as I might, I cannot find any logical alternative to conception being the start of life. I have a great pile of literature on my desk from organisations and people who are trying to prove the contrary. As a drowning man clings to a log of wood when he is in the water, I stick to that definition because I cannot find any other reasonable criteria with which to deal with this important Bill. If one departs from that idea, where does one end up? What is the difference in law, in logic, in morality or in science between 14 days, 20, 30 or 40 days? My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) clearly identified the fact
  964
  that on the one hand it is said that the experimentation must stop at 14 days, whereas at 15 days—or after that —we are quite prepared to abort the foetus.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is no longer in his place, because I wish to take issue with the advice that he received from some clerics in the Salisbury diocese. Despite what was said, Christianity has never been in any doubt about the fact that human life starts with conception and ends with death. Some scientists and doctors try to chip away at each end, but it is Parliament's duty to hold the ring and to ensure that we arrive at the right answer.
  I read the reports of the debates in the other place carefully. Some of their Lordships seemed to be saying that they were not in favour of experimentation, but that they felt that they could not take that view into law. In a democracy, that seems a counsel of despair. All social legislation has involved great controversy, but we have had to consider and decide those measures with our votes. This is no exception.
  Crucial to our discussion on this part of the Bill is the question whether, by banning research, we are stopping or delaying progress with either IVF or the elimination of genetic diseases. I am sure that many hon. Members will make up their minds on that issue alone, and that it will be a decisive factor.
  The debate is far too short to go deeply into the arguments that have been placed before us by various people in the medical and scientific professions. One thing is clear. Even in the relatively short time since Warnock, we have far greater knowledge than that Committee had. Things are moving fast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Goodson-Wickes) said. The harsh light of publicity has shone on the matter since Warnock. As a result, we have been shown research methods and findings which were not available then.
  I am not against research. All that I am against is research that destroys the embryo, as the Father of the House said so eloquently earlier. The problem with IVF is not fertilisation but the implantation of the fertilised embryo. There is no need to use embryos for research into this. We also know that genetic abornamalities are evident in the sperm or in the ovum. Therefore, there is no need to use the live embryo for such research. It can be carried out without doing that. Therefore, we must think carefully about these points and consider the technical evidence that has been put before the House.
  George Orwell talked about 1984. I submit to the House that if we follow the example of the other place, we shall be only six years late.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. David Alton: To reinforce what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) has just said. If the people who pitted themselves against slavery in this Parliament 200 years ago had listened to the utilitarians of their day and accepted that it was merely a matter of private morality, the slavery laws would still be on the statute book. I do not accept that this is merely a matter of private morality. It is an issue on which everyone in the Chamber has a right to a view. It goes to the very heart of how we perceive humanity.
  Lady Warnock has always emphasised the distinction between fact and opinion. I agree with her. In 1985 at

  965
  Newcastle, she said that only a fool would now say that life does not begin at conception. Her committee, which drew up the Warnock report, said:
  "Once the process has begun, there is no particular part of the development process which is more important than another … However, we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken in order to allay public anxiety."
  Lady Warnock and her committee hit on the aptly named primitive streak. As the hon. Member for Maidstone (Ms. Widdecombe) said earlier, she never once used the term pre-embryo. That was a later invention. Surely a debate which may make lawful destructive experiments on human embryos requires the clearest of language. The word "embryo" comes from the Greek and is defined as the rudimentary, initial or earliest stage of development. The word "foetus" means little one. Those code words from ancient language hide the truth that our generation seeks to deny.
  Our opponents in the debate say that the embryo is just a collection of cells. That may be, but it is still a unique human being. One could say that every human being, of whatever age or size, is just a collection of cells. Just because an embryo is small, it does not mean that it is morally inferior. Others say that it is merely potential life. Not true. It is human life with the potential, in favourable circumstances, to develop fully to human maturity. In many ways, the 14-day argument concedes that. After all, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, it must be 14 days after something. Fertilisation is the only event to which everyone of us here can point and say, "That is when I began and I have been me ever since."
  The appearance of the primitive streak is a landmark, not a watershed. It is an incident in a life that has already begun. Fertilisation determines the colour of our eyes and the colour of our skin, our sex and our uniqueness—not 14 days. The conclusions that we reach about the tiny, vulnerable, powerless human embryo will later shape how we regard the status of every individual and how we perceive his or her human rights. It will determine our attitude towards disabled people, the senile, the incurably sick and the terminally ill.
  This supreme human rights issue is of the highest moral significance. Those who justify destructive experiments use the classic utilitarian argument that means justify ends, that benefits outweigh costs and that it is my right to choose, even to take another human life, because it is all for the common good. We heard the word "enlightenment" earlier. Dr. Michael Hall, who was quoted in The Guardian in 1987, said on the subject of scientists' intentions in research and IVF:
  "It would mean we could manipulate at will the genetic pool, produce super-races, modify ethnic traits, excise socially unacceptable habits—in fact produce people to order."
  If they had the unfettered right, unhampered and unhindered by Parliament, some of our scientists would pursue nothing less than that. Their thinking is summed up by the Oxford philosopher, Jonathon Glover, who said:
  "For a utilitarian killing is in no way intrinsically wrong, but is only wrong because of its implications for happiness and misery."
  Scientists say, "Allow us to experiment and there will be no more handicap and no more infertility." The supporters of experimentation have been constantly challenged, and I challenge the Secretary of State again today, to name a
  966
  single human disease in which embryo research has led to significant cures or advances in treatment. Lord Walton of Detchant, the scientist—who favours experimentation—admitted in the debate in another place:
  "I agree that as yet there are none."
  Cures are not achieved. What is achieved is detection. One hon. Member described it as culling the handicapped. Lord Rea also told the House of Lords:
  "We should also consider society's need to reduce by every means possible the proportion of handicapped children."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 1990, c. 958.]
  The House should note the phraseology. He referred to the elimination not merely of handicap, but of handicapped children, by every means possible.
  Care and kill can never be used as synonyms. Quality controls and perfection tests on life are repugnant. They are defeatist. There are alternatives. Professor Hymie Gordon, Professor Jerome Lejeune, Professor John Marshall and Professor Ron Taylor, whom I mentioned earlier in an intervention, are four of the leading academics in the field. Professor Gordon said:
  "Everything we need to learn can be learnt by studying genetic diseases in non-human primates and other animals."
  Much valuable work is also being done in treating genetic conditions. That does not involve embryos; it involves research on blood or other tissues taken from adult patients. In the longer term there is also the prospect of gene therapy. I support strongly non-lifetaking research and unconditional help for disabled people and their families.
  As the child enters the valley of decision, it is worth pondering for a moment where our failure to follow the maker's instructions have taken us. Within the past two weeks, there have been two graphic illustrations of our anti-life ethics. In my city of Liverpool, a court came to a verdict after a drunken driver mowed down an eight-month pregnant mum on a pedestrian crossing. The baby died, but the court was told that the unborn child did not count. The driver was given a three-month sentence and a £1 fine.
  There was also the case of the King's college baby, stabbed to death through the wall of the womb with potassium chloride at 27 and a half weeks gestation. One of a pair of twins, the baby had a chromosomal defect that would have left it impotent. A letter in The Lancet suggested that such selective reduction should be called pregnancy enhancement as a more endearing description of what we authorise under British law.
  We were told 23 years ago that abortion rights would not lead to abortion on demand. Today, one in five pregnancies ends in abortion—3 million since 1967. It is a cruel paradox that this Bill says that personhood begins at 14 days and after that it would be a crime to violate the embryo. However, it will remain perfectly legal to kill a foetus in an abortion for the next 26 weeks. It will also be legal deliberately to create so-called spare human embryos, merely for the purpose of experimentation. If we treated foxes, seals or beagles in that way, there would be a public outcry.
  Like the abortion laws, there will be no end to what we are asked to sanction. Like the abortion laws, once the principle has been agreed, it will be difficult to turn back. The popular perception is that, once Parliament has legalised something, it must be right.
  Our legislation allows abortions later than anywhere else in the world. Last year, women from 100 countries —from Mongolia to South Africa—came to the United

  967
  Kingdom for late abortions. Denmark, Ireland, parts of Australia, Norway, Portugal, and soon West Germany all forbid experiments in their countries, and the House must ask itself whether it really wants Britain to be the centre of that trade.
  Concern for the human embryo is part of a seamless garment. That garment is woven together by a common thread. Here is a concern for life, justice, care and worth. When one considers the degradation of life today, destruction of family life, collapse of communities and of good neighbourliness, contamination and plunder of creation, and indifference to the world's hungry and poor, one can see how that seamless garment has become a tatter of rags. That is what happens when society ceases to believe that each person is unique, sculpted in the image of his maker, and not to be treated as expendable raw material.
  The Bill represents a crossroads every bit as important as that which we faced in 1967, and concerns an issue of fundamental human rights. I hope that the House agrees that to embark on the use of the tiniest human being as the subject of destructive experimentation is a dangerous departure from civilised ways. I say in conclusion to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who said "Knock and the door will be opened":
  "In as much as ye have done it to the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me."
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate the Government on an excellent Bill, on a subject that is not easy to tackle. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the other Ministers concerned have done well. The Bill had a good passage through the other place. I congratulate their Lordships and the Archbishop of York on their debate on clause 11 in particular, and on sending the Bill to this House in a form that we would like to consider.
  We should congratulate also this country's doctors and scientists on giving us a world lead through a combination of excellence in medical science and in moral science. Philosophers such as the Reverend Professor Dunstan, a former Queen's chaplain, deserves great credit for his work in sustaining the philosophy behind the work of Edwards and Steptoe.
  I refer briefly to the subject of handicaps, in which I have a personal interest as the adoptive parent of a handicapped child. Research offers the chance of a breakthrough in helping parents who risk producing children with genetic disorders to avoid doing so. I ask any right hon. or hon. Member who is doubtful about how to vote, to vote in favour of the Bill, for the hope that such research offers prospective parents. Handicaps afflict too many people in our country, and we do not look after them properly.
  I remind the House that there are 5,500 handicapped children in institutional care because their parents are unable to look after them. I know of families in my constituency who make desperate attempts to look after their children, but who find it difficult to do so. We should not seek to stop research that can offer families the chance of healthy children.
  Handicapped children are often sent from pillar to post and lead a miserable life not only because of their handicap but on account of the breakdown in the family relationship that stems from it. Handicapped children surely deserve
  968
  the love and care of a family even more than healthy children. I call upon right hon. and hon. Members who oppose research to do more to provide family homes for handicapped children.
  I opposed Enoch Powell's Bill, and have played my part in the five-year campaign against the thinking behind his Bill. I also helped to form the campaign group Progress, which has helped to counter propaganda against the Bill and has been well supported by medical charities. The work done by the Medical Research Council and the Association of Medical Research Charities also illustrates the broad base of scientific support for the Bill. Only a small minority of scientists are opposed to the research in question. I look forward to the debate on clause 11, and to the vote on it, and I hope that I may play a part in its Committee stage.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I address my remarks to members of my own party, not so much to other right hon. and hon. Members. I do not intend to pronounce on questions of morality, ethics, or pre-embryo research. Instead, I refer to the position taken generally by people on the left, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the European Community. I do so because I believe that the debate has to some extent been hijacked by a permissive lobby which, unfortunately, often sways many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, without them giving due consideration to the implications of the issues involved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) was right to spell out Labour party policy.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was conference policy.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was a decision of the Labour party conference that the opportunities for women to have the right to choose should be maximised. That policy affects this debate as much as that on abortion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking made it clear that Labour Members are free to vote as they wish. When they do so, I know that they will take into account the decision taken at Labour's national conference, where millions of votes were cast in favour of a policy that we must acknowledge.
  Many members of the public following this debate, and perhaps reading of it in the press, might be led to believe that Labour is dominated by people who say that it is in favour of embryo research and of a fairly permissive regime in respect of abortion. That is not the case. The Labour party's membership holds varied views on such matters. It has within it the Labour Life Group, a national organisation affiliated to the Labour party with branches throughout the United Kingdom. It holds an annual meeting, which was staged last year on 13 June at the Conway hall in London, and holds meetings at Labour's national conference. I draw attention to that organisation to demonstrate that the debate in the Labour party is far wider than it might appear at first glimpse.
  Two interesting votes took place last year in the European Parliament. A vote on 16 March concerned a report on artificial in vivo and in vitro fertilisation. It emphasised the dignity of every human being from the moment of conception, the right of the child to life, and in particular the right of a child to a family. In that context, family meant the genetic mother and the genetic father.

  969
  The creation of surplus embryos during in vitro fertilisation should, according to one of the report's recommendations, be prohibited. A second report dealt with the same subject from a different viewpoint.
  That report was lost by only three votes—at least in respect of socialists in the European Parliament. Discarding the Conservative vote, voting among socialist Members of that Parliament was 39 votes against and 36 in favour. In terms of the number of people in the European left who cast their votes in the European Parliament, there was a clear division, with almost half the Labour group, the socialist group of the European Parliament, voting in favour of the recommendations.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Did the vote take place on the floor of the Parliament or in a Labour committee? If that vote took place during a plenary session, the figures are extraordinary.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am not sure about that, but I understand that a total of 150 votes were cast. Given that the hon. Lady was once a Member of the European Parliament, she will be aware of the significance of my remarks.
  It is also worth considering what has happened in other European Parliaments. I understand that socialists in Norway voted for a total prohibition and that socialists in Denmark voted for a moratorium. Socialists in France are so divided that the Bill currently before the French Parliament may have to be abandoned, while socialists in Germany overwhelmingly voted to ban research on embryos.
  When we debate such matters in the United Kingdom, we should do so in the context of what is happening in the rest of Europe. It is important to remember the division among socialists in the European Parliament and the socialist groups in various Parliaments throughout the Community, which form a strong part of those Parliaments.
  My hon. Friends should also note the stance of radical socialist feminists. They represent a huge international movement, which has been completely ignored by the British Labour party in the context of this debate. We should consider what those feminists have said. In July 1985 an important meeting took place in Vellinge in Sweden, at which 16 countries were represented. An organisation called Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering, FINRRAGE, was formed as a result of that meeting. That organisation has thousands of members from around 35 countries.
  Before anyone shouts that it must be a Catholic organisation, I must tell the House that that is not so. It is a pro-abortion organisation, but it is opposed to research into the embryo. There is no contradiction in terms. When I asked members of that organisation about that, they explained the nature of the consistency in their argument.
  As a result of the 1985 conference, FINRRAGE passed a resolution to resist the development and application globally of the technologies derived from embryo research. FINRRAGE has claimed that those technologies destroy women's physical integrity, exploit women's procreativity, undermine women's struggle for control of reproduction and are generally harmful to the interests of all women.
  970
  A document produced by that organisation for its 1989 conference states:
  "The position of FINRRAGE is unique. The challenge in responding to these technologies from a women-centred perspective is to reorient the ethical and political discussion so that it takes account of what these technologies do to women, the primary subjects of medical and scientific experimentation in the area of new technologies. None of the dominating 'official' discussions have taken these issues into account."
  That organisation is complaining that the international discussion that is taking place about such research completely disregards and dismisses the contribution that radical women can make.
  The second international FINRRAGE conference took place in Dhaka, Bangladesh in March 1989. There are now women in 35 countries on all continents participating in the network. The FINRRAGE document produced for that conference states:
  "This conference focused on issues affecting women from the North, South, East and West and how we can work together to resist reproductive and genetic engineering. The Comilla Declaration adopted by the conference provides a basis for our work worldwide."
  Those women, who regard themselves as "critical feminists," are exploring three areas—the link between genetic engineering and reproductive technologies, the different meaning of the new productive technologies for Third and First-world women and what the application of such reproductive and genetic engineering will mean for women in the future, as well as now.
  That radical women's organisation is based in all the major countries. It meets regularly and it has branches in various parts of the United Kingdom. It is highly organised in western Europe, and its representatives believe that the debate on embryo research disregards their position. We cannot disregard the views of those women. They form part of the European left and they have a voice to be heard.
  8.55 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I should like to begin by quoting from a document published earlier in the session by the pro-research organisation, Progress, which is entitled "Freedom to Choose". The quotation has already been used in the debate, but it is worth repeating; those advocating human embryo research state:
  "Research using human pre-embryos is not, and never has been, concerned with treatment of genetic disorders, or chromosomal abnormalities."
  Those who pretend that that is not the case are playing coldly, cruelly and callously upon the quite understandable fears, hopes and frustrations of those who suffer from genetic disease and those who care for and love them.
  What some scientists are seeking is the right to perform destructive research upon perfectly normal, healthy human embryos, for the sole purpose of perfecting techniques for seeking out and destroying other handicapped embryos.
  The ban on destructive human embryo research that we propose would not prevent a woman with a history of genetic disease from declining to have implanted within her an embryo created though the in vitro fertilisation programme that had been found to be defective or deformed. To that extent, those who mistakenly believe that such pre-implantation screening holds any real hope of eliminating handicap would still be able to follow the

  971
  process. What they would not be able to do is to destroy other perfectly healthy embryos in developing new techniques for destroying handicapped ones.
  It should be remembered, incidently, that the Royal College of Physicians had some wise words in its report entitled "Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening" published in September 1989. It said:
  "Most infants with congenital malformations and chromosomal disorders are born to health young women with no previously identifiable risk factors. It seems unlikely that these sporadic disorders can be prevented."
  A ban on human embryo research would not prevent improvements and developments in the IVF programme. Many of us who support that ban are not opposed to IVF. A friend of mine is currently undergoing IVF and I naturally very much hope that she and her husband will be able to conceive and to bring forth a healthy baby.
  I realise only too well that this is often the last hope for many couples, and I would not wish to see the IVF programme stopped. We also understand the problems faced by infertile couples and believe in research on the causes of infertility and to help in the treatment of those who are infertile. I would not like anyone to run away with the idea that we do not have compassion for those who cannot conceive easily.
  We need research into dead embryos which fail to implant. As another colleague said, no living embryo will show why a particular embryo cannot implant. Specialists need to garner the dead embryos and experiment on them to find out why they have not implanted and to carry out other research for the woman.
  We must ask, "What is the purpose of research?" I have come to the conclusion that it is not to prevent handicap. The only way in which research can prevent handicap is by seeking out and killing the handicapped embryo. We also know that there is a hidden agenda behind that research and those experiments—to develop new abortifacients and contraceptives for the Third world. We all know that a vast amount of money is involved in developing those new drugs, and we must face that fact.
  Even as we speak, progress is being made without the use of human embryo experimentation. I shall mention two of the exciting developments in molecular biology, which have arisen in the short time since the Government introduced the Bill to Parliament. The first one involves muscular dystrophy. The Times of 11 January stated that scientists in Oxford had identified a minigene in muscular dystrophy which prevented serious disability and
  "could be used in the future for treating severe cases of muscular dystrophy by gene therapy."
  The second example involved cystic fibrosis, in which I have an interest because one of my godsons has the condition. The identification and isolation of the cystic fibrosis gene allows detailed study of the function of the protein involved. That will lead to specific pharmacological and gene therapy for cystic fibrosis. In The New England Journal of Medicine of 1 February this year, the rhetorical question is posed:
  "Moreover if the current studies of the molecular pathophysiology of cystic fibrosis yield, as anticipated, novel therapies that extent the quality and span of life for those with cystic fibrosis to the age of 40 or 50 years from the current median of 20 years, will elective abortion of an affected fetus be justified?"
  Genuine help for society will come from advances in the treatment of those disorders, not in the destruction of the few which can be identified at the embryonic stage.
  972
  In my comments, I have dealt almost exclusively with the new, bankrupt arguments peddled by those who wish, for reasons of their own, to promote research on human embryos as the panacea for all the ills in our society. They are perpetrating a cruel hoax, which I hope the House will reject.
  In future debates, I intend to table a number of amendments to the Bill to seek to curb the worst abuses of the artificial insemination by donor services. That matter was raised by many peers during recent debates in the other place. The Government's response was to include in the Bill a new subsection in clause 13 which states:
  "A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment, and of any other child who may be affected by the birth."
  I welcome the new wording, which acknowledges the welfare of children as a priority, but it does not go far enough and is far too weak and woolly. I strongly believe that, in the best interests of the child born, treatment should be given only to married couples or to a man and woman living together in a stable relationship. The child so born should have the right to know its genetic background at the age of 18, and there should be an automatic right for the child to know how it was conceived. There is nothing to be ashamed of, so I would have thought that society would not want to hide the way in which the child was conceived.
  There should also be safeguards on the number of donated eggs or sperm, to cut down on unwitting incest. Most importantly, the name of the social or non-genetic father of the child should not appear on the birth certificate under the heading of "father", but the phrase "by donation" should be used. It is quite wrong for a new life to begin with a lie that will last the length of that life. We should surely encourage honesty and truth and acknowledge that new techniques are being used to help parenthood, that those new techniques should be recognised in law, and that the children resulting from them should have their rights protected by the law.
  It is essential that the Secretary of State be responsible to the House and the people of this country for the work of the licensing authority. I served on the Standing Committee examining the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill, which was an excellent piece of legislation. It makes no sense to treat human beings worse than we would treat animals. It is vital that that concept be reintroduced during subsequent stages of the Bill, which we shall debate with a great deal of interest.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The House will wish to know that the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.30 pm. Many hon. Members who have sat here most of the day still want to speak, so I appeal for short speeches to continue.
  9.6 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: This Bill is entitled the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, thus encompassing a huge, delicate and controversial topic. The House would have enough on its plate dealing with only that subject.
  I want to mention some aspects that will get in the way of proper consideration of the embryology part of the Bill. The long title of the Bill says that the Act will

  973
  "make provision in connection with human embryos and any subsequent development of such embryos",
  which is a strange and rather sweeping statement. We are all, after all, the subsequent development of embryos. I wondered how far this matter might go. I realised that if certain hon. Members were determined to extend the scope of the Bill to take account of the interests of the foetus, I should be prepared to enter into an argument about that.
  However, we now learn that new clauses relating only to the termination of pregnancy will be accepted. If we are to deal with foetuses in the Bill, why cannot we deal with, for example, the proper nourishment of expectant mothers, so that their foetuses can develop properly? Why cannot we deal with the fact that many pregnant women are so poor that they cannot eat properly, thereby prejudicing the chances of their foetuses? Why cannot we deal with the fact that young girls have particular problems that lead to damage to the development of the foetus, resulting in a much higher incidence of perinatal mortality?
  Why cannot I table amendments to deal with social security matters to put those problems right? If we are concerned about the subsequent development of the foetus, I should have the right to do that. Why allow the Bill to be hijacked by those whose only interest in the foetus is abortion?
  Mrs. Ann Winterton rose—
  Mrs. Wise: No explanation has reached my ears during this debate, and I have listened to all of it. I strongly disapprove of the fact that the interests of pregnant women and their foetuses are being excluded from a Bill that is supposed to be being extended to deal with foetuses. Certain hon. Members are interested only in abortion, not in the unborn child or its development after birth. If the House were so interested in the welfare of children, many women would not feel the desperation that drives them to seek abortions.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) did the House a service in drawing attention to the fact that many handicapped children have miserable lives that could be made less miserable if there were any intention on the part of the House or society to do so. I should have welcomed a non-partisan approach to such questions and problems. I do not welcome a myopic concentration on the subject of abortion.
  We have been told about the importance of language, and I agree that it is important. I have listened intently while we were accused by implication of being pro-slavery. It has been said that the likes of us would not have wanted to see an end to the slave trade. We have been accused of being in favour of experiments on little children, and a picture has been painted of the massacre of the innocents taking place in our country. It follows that, if there is a massacre of innocents, people are massacring them. Sometimes I do not feel very optimistic when I look around our society, but I am not so pessimistic as to think that I am surrounded by people who massacre innocents. I am often surrounded by women who have enormous problems and desperate feelings about them. I should like to see the House reduce the causes of that desperation.
  The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) told us that even the moment of fertilisation is somewhat moveable. Leaving that aside, we have been told
  974
  that from the moment of fertilisation there is a human being and not a potential human being. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) specifically objects to that phrase. He says that, from the moment of fertilisation, there is a human being with potential.
  With respect, the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. It is a potential human being and, if the circumstances are right, the fertilised egg may develop into a human being. It has been said that many do not and that, if nature if so profligate, perhaps it is not so sinful to agree that it would be proper for good reason to use those embryos to improve the lives of children who will be born. I do not object to that reasonable proposition. The embryo is not a human being. In an ectopic pregnancy the embryo cannot develop into a human being, but it is a fertilised egg, an embryo.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Wise: I shall not give way in a 10-minute speech. An ectopic pregnancy cannot result in the development of a baby.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It could kill the mother.
  Mrs. Wise: Exactly, so it is not in itself a human being, cannot be regarded as such, and cannot develop into a human being.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Wise: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) should respect the rules of the House and keep her silence unless she is on her feet.
  Those who say that they have an absolute concept of life do not in practice follow their own advice.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish.
  Mrs. Wise: No hon. Member, with hand on heart, could say that he or she has a total respect for life, in all circumstances—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Wise: —otherwise there would be no vote for capital punishment, no money would be spent by our society on weapons of war—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Wise: —there would be no export of armaments from this country, which encourages people to think that they should earn their living by exporting armaments. They are instruments of death—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Wise: —yet some hon. Members say that they accept the absolute concept of life from the moment of conception. There has been a good deal of hypocrisy in this debate. There have been some good, thoughtful speeches, but I side with those who say—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Wise: —that hon. Members ought to show some humility. I hope that hon. Members will exercise their conscience in the Division Lobbies, but I hope, too, that they will remember that they represent people with an equal right to exercise their own judgment and conscience.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish.
  Mrs. Wise: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Lancaster calls out, "Rubbish."
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I ask the hon. Lady to give me a chance by giving way.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mrs. Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to harass another hon. Member? It is not often that I crave the protection of the Chair, but in this case I think that that protection has been noticeably missing.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is extremely short. I thought that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) was perfectly capable of protecting herself; otherwise, I should have intervened earlier.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) keeps referring to me, yet she will not give way when I rise courteously to my feet to ask a question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Points of order are prolonging the length of this speech.
  Mrs. Wise: I regret that my speech may inadvertently have been lengthened by the disorderly conduct of the hon. Member for Lancaster.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No. The hon. Lady would not give way.
  Mrs. Wise: I am pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you considered me to be capable of taking care of myself. I shall always endeavour to do so. I should be sorry if my point about the importance of our conscience, and of the conscience of those whom we represent, was overlooked because some hon. Members believe that only they are the guardians of morality and conscience.
  9.17 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: This has been a long debate. Strong feelings have been expressed —perhaps a little more strongly in the last few moments. Our constituents also have strong feelings about the subject. We, as Members of Parliament, listen to the arguments, but many people misunderstand the subject.
  I have always been totally against embryo research at any stage. I, together with many people, wish the time limit for abortions to be reduced. This is an ideal measure to discuss the matter. Many people are not against abortion per se. I am not against abortion. Nevertheless, the time at which some abortions take place has become a national scandal. When we debated the matter some time ago I said that the figures suggested that we were becoming the foetel dustbin of Europe. The problem is growing worse, not better.
  976
  We need legislation and I hope that the House, in its wisdom, will decide not to allow research on human embryos. If it does, we shall be on a slippery slope that will take us to where the scientists think we should stop. Scientists will wish to push back the frontiers of science if they can decide whether they should stop. The House should not give scientists the opportunity to do that because we will be saying in future, "God help us. Why on earth did Parliament allow that to happen?"
  Many people oppose the use of embryos for research purposes on moral, Christian and other grounds. Many of us reached that view after considerable thought and after many discussions with people on both sides of the debate. We all have sympathy for people who cannot have children. We are not legislating that they should not be given the opportunity, but we should also consider that no person has a God-given right to expect to have a child, although we hope that medical technology can help many couples and make them into a complete family, if that is what they wish.
  Many people in Britain with handicapped children do not want future generations to gain from experiments on human embryos, and they have made that clear to me in many discussions. They have a right to that view and we should take it into account.
  It would be difficult to allow research on human embryos up to some arbitary cut-off point, as such legislation would be difficult to enforce. I had hoped to discuss various parts of the Bill that I consider would lead to a free-for-all, but time is limited. I hope that we will return to the issue later.
  How many researchers would jeopardise future funding or professional reputations which could be established by one or two extra days' experimentation on a human embryo? Who will say, "The 14 days are up; no more experiments"? Who will have the knowledge to take such a decision? All embryos do not look the same. As some may look 12, 13, 16 or 18 days old at 14 days, it will be very difficult for any licensing body to police the legislation.
  It is difficult, if not impossible, to reach a rational view about the overall impact of the legislation when so much of it will be dealt with by statutory instruments. I urge Ministers to ensure that the House has plenty of time to discuss those regulations and statutory instruments, and that they will not be whistled through late on Thursday nights when some Members may not be present. We need to discuss those regulations extremely carefully.
  There is much concern about the membership of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It is proposed that the majority of the research licensing committee be made up of researchers. That would be rather like employing child molesters in a nursery school. We do not want such legislation being sanctioned by the House. It is such an important issue that we may not get the opportunity to discuss it in full again for perhaps another decade or possibly two, so we must ensure that when the Bill finally reaches the statute book after completing its Committee stage, we have in place exactly what right hon. and hon. Members believe should be there. There must be no comeback other than on the regulations laid down by the Government.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) will understand that some of us were pained and distressed by his speech. He talked about the eugenics of a brave new world. What can that mean other than that cross-species fertilisation, as allowed in the Bill, will lead, he thinks, to the creation of human and animal hybrids? Therefore, I should like to ask some direct questions of the Department and the Minister.
  Will the Minister confirm that fusion between human sperm and the egg of an animal is allowed under the Bill in only specific and tightly controlled circumstances? Will she confirm that that involves the procedure normally known as the "hamster" test, whereby human sperm is mixed with specially prepared hamster eggs to test the sperm's ability to fuse with an egg membrane? Will she confirm that the coating of the hamster's egg is dissolved chemically to allow the penetration of sperms from another species? Will she confirm that, without the removal of that coating, fusion with human sperms would be impossible?
  After three hours' incubation, the eggs are removed and inspected for evidence of fusion between the sperm and the egg plasma membrane. The hamster eggs, which in any event are non-viable, are then discarded. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), with his membership of the Medical Research Council, knows how critical a factual statement is on those points.
  The hamster test is used in the development of male contraceptive agents and in the study of chromosomal abnormalities of human spermatozoa. Will the Minister confirm that there is absolutely no possibility of hybridisation between human and hamster cells?
  The genetic constitution of the cells is completely incompatible, and even if the period of incubation were extended the hamster eggs would degenerate spontaneously because they have no developmental potential following fusion with human sperm. Without its outer covering, would not the egg of any species, fertilised or not, quickly lose its viability? All sorts of fanciful stories have been put around about hybridisation. The sooner they are out of the way the better.
  I turn to the more common argument that has been used in the debate, and it was put most strongly by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). What is the point of pre-embryo research, which has not produced a cure or treatment for genetic disease or chromosomal abnormality?
  There is some confusion about the aims and potential of pre-embryo research. It has never been claimed by serious people in Edinburgh or anywhere else that this research is carried out that it will produce a cure for genetic disease or that it will be used as a general method of screening genetic diseases. Rather, it has been claimed that it will be able to prevent the passing on of such disease for couples who are at substantial risk.
  Once a couple have borne a child with a genetic disease, or are known to carry a deleterious gene that is highly likely to be passed on to their offspring, they may opt in the next pregnancy for the genetic testing of the conceptus antenatally. At present, that is done by taking some of the waters that surround the foetus at about 16 weeks of pregnancy or by taking a small sample of the placenta at about 10 weeks.
  978
  In either case, the diagnosis of an affected pregnancy leaves the woman with the distressing choice of whether to proceed to an abortion.
  I shall stick scrupulously to the time available to me. For 23 years, I have been a weekly columnist for the New Scientist. My colleagues will understand that, as such, I am a receptacle for many letters. There have been pained letters from people who strongly feel that embryo research should not go ahead, but there have also been many long, serious, pained letters from those who are carrying out the research and who feel that they should have a voice in the House of Commons debate and that they are helping humankind by the work that they do, often in extremely distressing circumstances.
  There is emotion on both sides of the argument. Some of us strongly believe that the researchers are doing their work in good faith and using their skills for the benefit of mankind and that they should have a voice in future debates.
  9.30 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: Two strongly held opposing views have been put forward in the debate, which has ranged across moral, ethical, conscience and science questions. It has not been a debate between those who have a moral conscience and strongly held moral convictions and those who do not or, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said, a debate between moralists and utilitarians—rather, it has been a debate between those whose moral convictions would have them ban research and those, like me, whose moral convictions lead us to support the continuation of research. It is not a debate between those who have a conscience and those who do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) put this well in her speech —it is a debate between Members whose conscience would lead them to different conclusions.
  Mr. Alton: That is not quite what I said. I said that there were utilitarians on one side of the argument and, on the other, those who reject the utilitarian point of view. I do not think that there is a monopoly on morality, but we have to have at the centre of our debate a concern for life. Does the hon. Lady accept that those of us who support research do so based on the precondition that that research does not lead to experiments that destroy life?
  Ms. Harman: Those of us who support embryo research also believe that we support life. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, perhaps I may develop my arguments, which show why my moral convictions and conscience lead me to support embryo research up to 14 days.
  There are deeply held views on both sides of the argument, which have sprung from a decision to protect and enhance human life and a sense of religious conviction. There are many different views on the beginning of life, and it was helpful to hear from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who gave the most lucid explanation of the pre-embryo stage of development. His words echoed those of the Archbishop of York in another place who, in effect, said that there was no doubt of the wonder of the moral world and the religious significance of personhood, but that the transitions on the way to it were not clear, clean-cut and decisive, despite the tremendous significance that some people would give to the moment of

  979
  fertilisation. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) pointed out that the precise moment of fertilisation was being brought in question the more we know about that process.
  I support the view that there is a valid place for research but that special safeguards are needed. Fourteen days appears to represent in the process of development an identifiable biological transition. It is right that there should be no research beyond 14 days. It is easy for those of us who do not need the research perhaps to overlook or undervalue its benefits. We should listen with humility to those men and women whom this research is designed to help.
  Those of us who have never struggled with the misery of infertility, those of us who have not had repeated miscarriages and those of us who are blessed with healthy children are indeed fortunate. But there are thousands of couples in Britain who are not so fortunate. We must listen to their voices when they ask us to allow the research to go ahead.
  One couple in eight suffers from infertility. To some, that figure is unbelievably high but it is the interim licensing authority's own estimate. The figure is higher than we realise because of the sense of shame and the stigma that still attach to infertility. Men feel ashamed to admit that they cannot make their wives pregnant and feel that it somehow reflects on their manhood. There are women who believe that they are not real women if they cannot do what other women seem to take so easily for granted.
  Whatever the causes of infertility, its result is plain: thousands of people's lives are blighted by their inability to have a child. It does not matter how happy someone's marriage or how satisfying his or her work is; infertility can leave a terrible gap in the lives of people who want a family.
  The shadow of infertility has reached down through the centuries, but medical research, including embryo research, is beginning to lift that shadow little by little and now the diagnosis of infertility can be the beginning and not just the end of hope. Microsurgery to clear blocked tubes, drug treatment to encourage ovulation, conception outside the womb by in vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination—whether by donor or by husband—have led to many thousands of babies being born.
  But although we have made tremendous strides, there is still a long way to go and many scientists believe that we can improve the success rate of IVF. At present, the treatment succeeds with only between 10 and 15 per cent. of couples who try it. Let us speak plainly about this: we cannot realistically increase the success rate of IVF without further research. Those who would ban embryo research say that they want IVF to continue. The only reason why we know how to perform IVF is that we have undertaken research and it would be wrong to end that research before it makes a breakthrough.
  Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Harman: I know what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will say. He is fortunate because his IVF treatment was successful. Let me remind him, however, that 90 per cent. of the couples who go through the treatment that he and his wife went through do not succeed. I hope that he will vote with me to give them the chance that he has had.
  Mr. Brazier: The evidence based on the voluntary licensing authority's figures is that the success factor in IVF is not the presence of destructive embryo experimentation but the number of IVF procedures that the clinic has carried out. That is why the large, long-established clinics are the successful ones. Moreover, the second most successful clinic in Australia is in an area where experimentation is illegal.
  Ms. Harman: I have to accept the view of the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Medical Research Council and the Royal Society, which take a different view. They feel that the success rate of IVF will increase, but only with further embryo research.
  At least 275,000 couples in the United Kingdom could benefit from IVF, so an increase in the success rate is important. I pay tribute to the important work of the assisted conception unit at King's College hospital in my constituency. Not only does the research need to improve: we need increased services. It is wrong that if one suffers from infertility that is amenable to treatment, one's ability to get that treatment will depend on whether one has the money to pay for it in the private sector or whether by chance one lives in one of the few places where it is available on the National Health Service. We need more services as well as more research.
  Many couples are never able to find out why they cannot have a baby. About 40,000 suffer from unexplained infertility. Further research is needed for them, too. Perhaps the people to whom we should be listening most carefully are people such as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who have had a child with a genetic abnormality. Every year in the United Kingdom, 14,000 babies are born with genetic defects passed on by their parents. Some of those defects are so serious that there is no hope for the child, who suffers terribly and dies after a few weeks or months.
  I want to refer to a specific case. When Clare was born she seemed perfectly normal, but a small area of peeling skin developed into blistering and bleeding. She was diagnosed as having epidermolysis bullosa, which is a genetic disease that results in blistering and sheering of the skin if it is so much as touched. The blistering destroys the outer skin layers and can affect the body linings, leaving the sufferer unable to eat. Clare suffered raw sores from the middle of her back to the top of her leg so she could lie only on her front. Her parents continually bathed her and changed her dressings, but they could not cuddle her. Just to touch her made her skin peel.
  Clare suffered terrible pain and her short life ended at the age of 83 days. Parents like Clare's face a terrible choice once they discover that they carry a genetic abnormality. For most it is unthinkable to have another child only to stand by helplessly while it suffers or dies. The alternative is to have ante-natal screening and to face the difficult decision of aborting a much-wanted pregnancy.
  Embryo research offers those parents the prospect of testing the embryo outside the womb and of re-implanting into the mother only an embryo that is clear of the gene that she or her husband carries. No one is arguing that screening should be compulsory. It would be up to the parents. However, it is clear that people whose children have died as a result of genetic defects want the chance of a healthy baby. If embryo research was banned, they would be denied that choice.

  981
  To lose a baby through miscarriage is terrible. About 75,000 women in the United Kingdom this year will miscarry. However, many suffer the misery of repeated miscarriage. Further research offers them the hope of understanding the cause of repeated miscarriage and a chance to treat it.
  Embryo research also offers the prospect of developing better contraception. People have talked about the importance of devoloping contraception because of the Third world. However, women in this country will testify that the search for safe and effective contraception is far from won.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said that there is a lamentably high level of abortions in his city. He is right. There are 200,000 unplanned and regretted pregnancies in this country every year. Contraception is still difficult, and threatens the health of many women. The possibility of developing a contraceptive vaccine that imitates the natural condition of infertility would give much hope to women in the Third world as well as to women in this country.
  Of course embryo research must be carefully monitored and controlled. The Bill would outlaw research that was carried out simply to satisfy scientific curiosity. It would outlaw research unless it was carried out under licences granted, renewed and reviewed by the statutory licensing authority. Under the Bill, experiments to cross animal cells with human cells or cloning would be illegal. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right. The allegations about the thin end of the wedge have no foundation. We are talking about legislation and making law. The Bill would give a criminal limit of 14 days. The idea of slipping past 14 days is sloppy talk and not worthy of this House.
  The continuation of embryo research is a matter of conscience. Of course there are two sides to every moral question. However, my conscience makes me listen to the voices of people who cannot have children and to the voices of those who have watched their children die. I hope that the House will vote for the continuation of embryo research as a chance to end their suffering.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The debate has been characterised by authoritative speeches about subjects on which there are strong feelings in the House. We have had a range of speeches in which hon. Members have spoken from individual experience and according to their strongly held views about the ethical, scientific and medical issues involved. Many hon. Members have referred to the great number of briefings that they have received from outside organisations. We know quite well that all who are involved in this vital subject are deeply concerned to ensure that careful thought is given to the proposals for legislation. There is overwhelming agreement that the time has come for a strong statutory framework to control these important matters.
  It is invidious to pick out particular speeches from the many that we have heard, but I must refer to the speech by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who spoke with great feeling about the respect to be afforded the embryo; the
  982
  speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who spoke with her customary fluency and passion about abortion matters; and the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who spoke about her fear that 14 days might be the thin end of the wedge.
  On the other side of the argument, we heard the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the moving speech by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who spoke with great dignity born of personal experience, and the thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). Many of the issues that they raised were mentioned in another place, and I am sure that we shall return to them when clause 11 and schedule 2 are debated in Committee. At this stage, I should simply say that they are complex issues, and it is important that we give them our considered, thoughtful and clear deliberation.
  No one has questioned the profound significance of these matters. I urge hon. Members to study the debates on human embryo research in another place which attracted an especially high level of argument and clarity and were informed by mutual understanding of deeply felt and sincerely held views. I hope that we can rise to the challenge in this House when the time comes. These matters are of the greatest significance, and the Government will achieve one of their main objectives if the legislation that we enact is framed with as much sensitivity to opposing views as is practicable. When the time comes for hon. Members to cast their votes on amendments, they must decide each for himself or herself, in as calm and dispassionate a way as possible, what the right course should be.
  I do not think that it is necessary for me to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said about human embryo research, as there will be ample opportunity to do so when clause 11 and schedule 2 are debated—if the House agrees to the splitting and timetable motions in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. However, it would be appropriate for me to say a word or two about abortion, as all hon. Members must now be expecting that subject to be debated.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the subject of embryo research, will the Minister confirm that the answer to all the questions that I have asked her is yes?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am extremely happy to confirm the answer in the affirmative to all the important points made by the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with knowledge and expertise on scientific matters.
  Miss Widdecombe: No, he does not.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone always has an authoritative comment on all subjects that are debated in the House. I hope that she may be able to join us in Standing Committee so that we may benefit from her further advice and guidance on this important subject.
  My hon. Friend recognised that we were anticipating that abortion would come within the scope of the Bill. As on previous occasions when abortion has been debated in the House, hon. Members have expressed strong, deeply held and widely differing views on the matter of

  983
  conscience. Some hon. Members have already made up their minds on this question, but many of us are undecided and will want to weigh up the conflicting views before we, too, reach a decision. If, as seems likely, abortion amendments are debated on the Floor of the House, each hon. Member will have to decide for him or herself how he or she should vote.
  The House needs no reminder from me that this Government, like predecessor Governments of both main political parties, are neutral on the ethical question of abortion. Like individual hon. Members, members of the Government hold divergent views on the matter. The Government can therefore have no collective view of the merits of any abortion issues that the House may decide to debate.
  One of the main responsibilities of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which will be set up by the Bill, will be the task of licensing centres that undertake such activities. It might be helpful if I take this opportunity of reminding the House of the range of infertility treatments that the Bill seeks to regulate. They include in vitro fertilisation, commonly known as IVF; donor insemination, often referred to as artificial insemination by donor or AID; egg donation; and embryo donation.
  The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes were also concerned about whether GIFT—gamete intrafertilisation transfer—should also be regulated by the Bill. Two principles govern policy in the Bill about the treatments that are to be licensed. The first is that they involve donated gametes or embryos and the second is that they involve the creation of an embryo outside the body. Those principles have been developed because in each case there are questions about the embryo's legal status or statutory controls about what should happen to it. Neither principle applies in the case of GIFT.
  The Government are firmly committed to setting up this statutory authority. It is thanks to the interim licensing authority, led by its chairman, Dame Mary Donaldson, that although there has been no formal legislative control, since 1985 that task has been carried out in a most competent way.
  But the Government consider that the time is now right to fill this legislative vacuum and put this control on a statutory basis—to give the authority the clearer powers currently lacking, and perhaps, but more importantly, to provide the public with the certainty and confidence which only statutory control can provide in this very fast-changing and technically innovative field of science and medicine. I believe that that meets the agreement of the whole House.
  We have chosen to set up an independent statutory authority to remove the day-to-day detailed consideration of these very sensitive matters from the political arena. I know that this decision, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, is a disappointment to some who would have preferred direct ministerial control of the licensing system. This decision was, however, taken only after the most careful consideration. During our consultations before the publication of the 1987 White Paper, a number of options were put forward. The support for an independent body was overwhelming.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston asked about how the controls would be enforced and how the system would be policed. The Bill gives the new authority
  984
  detailed licensing powers over the centres that it licences —to make directions about general and specific matters and to give guidance to centres through its code of practice. Where necessary, it has the powers to revoke, suspend or vary licences. Its staff will be required to inspect the premises at least annually and, should any significant breach of the licensing conditions be discovered, the authority will have the power to take quick and effective action against the centre. In addition, clause 37 contains an armoury of penalties if offences are committed.
  Sir Bernard Braine: How often will the House have the opportunity of surveying or debating the activities of that body?
  Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend is aware that an amendment was accepted in another place that envisaged that the new authority should report to the Secretary of State not every other year, but every year. That report will, of course, be available for the scrutiny of hon. Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) questioned the use of the licence fee in this area. Increasingly, the standard practice is for licensing systems to be largely self-financing. There are many examples of that, including the registration of nursing homes, planning applications and licences under the Medicines Act 1971. The portion of the centre's licence fee directly attributable to the patient's treatment is likely to be small and should be regarded as part of the running costs of the centre.
  The Bill places on the authority a duty to maintain a code of practice giving guidance to centres about the proper conduct of activities licensed under the Bill. As I have said, that guidance will be published. I have no doubt that the authority will be sensitive to public and parliamentary opinion in deciding its contents. The code will provide guidelines on a range of issues including, not least, guidance for those providing treatment on how to take account of the welfare of any child born as a result of treatment covered by the Bill and of any existing children.
  All hon. Members will agree that the inclusion of the recognition of the welfare of children—a point that was important to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)—which was agreed in another place, is an important improvement in the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) referred to surrogacy and to a constituency case. The status of genetic parents if children are born to surrogate mothers under the present law may soon be determined by the courts. It would serve no useful purpose for me to speculate further on the position under the present law. The House will be aware that the Government's policy is that legislation should not encourage surrogacy arranged privately or on a non-commercial basis. The Bill provides that surrogacy arrangements will be unenforceable. I am sure that the Committee will come back to the points made by my right hon. Friend's constituents and to their experience.
  The Bill covers an area in which there is currently no statutory control. I recognise that there are and will remain, strongly and sincerely held differing views about these complex and sensitive issues. We all agree that they are of great importance to the society in which we live. The Government believe that there should be a comprehensive legislative framework to cover the new procedures and to

  985
  provide for the legal status of children born as a result of them. Clearly, that must be in the public interest and the interest of the individuals involved.
  We are committed to ensuring that the legislation provides a coherent framework which is properly understood, commands full public confidence and serves the needs of our society. I hope and believe that all right hon. and hon. Members share that aim.
  In his opening speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State emphasised that the Bill is the result of a lengthy process of widespread consultation, discussion and debate. Some preliminary views have been expressed about several central issues such as embryo research. The Government are anxious that Parliament should decide on these complex and often controversial questions in the light of as much information as possible. It is important that we have all had time fully to consider and reflect on the views put forward. We wanted a mature judgment to be made on the matter—mature because the opportunity was provided for a full assessment of the facts and a sustained debate on the ethical, scientific, legal and social questions.
  The speeches that we have heard today putting the arguments on both sides of the main issues, particularly for and against research, have been evenly divided, especially among Back Benchers. They demonstrated the authority and views of many people.
  The Government believe that it is essential that a statutory framework of control should be established and that the time is right for a decision to be made on what those controls should be on the matters of conscience in the Bill. That decision should reflect the individual views of each right hon. and hon. Member. My right hon. and learned Friend has made clear the position in respect of Ministers. The Bill provides the mechanism for those decisions, and on that basis I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (Committal)
  9.59 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That

  (a) Clause 11 and Schedule 2, and

  (b) any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than 20th April and relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners,

  be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
  That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
  That, when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.
  As the House already appreciates, the Bill is not only important but unusual in many respects. That can be judged from the fact that the House must consider tonight not one but two motions about the way in which the Bill should be handled at Committee stage. I propose to keep distinct the separate reasons for the two motions. I shall deal first with that which I have just moved. Its purpose is to ensure that major aspects arising from the Bill that are plainly matters of individual conscience will be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House.
  The arrangements for splitting a Bill between a Standing Committee and a Committee of the whole House are well known to us all from the proceedings on the Finance Bill. The reason for proposing arrangements of that kind for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill are equally clear.
  On major matters of conscience of the kind with which the Bill is concerned, it would be almost impossible for debates and votes in Standing Committee to reflect adequately the range and balance of opinions in the House as a whole. For that reason, it is right to have a Committee stage that can take account of those special factors. Hence the special motion.
  The fundamental issue of conscience in the Bill relates to whether embryo research should be allowed within closely defined limits or prohibited altogether. That topic has occupied most of the time of the House on Second Reading. For that reason, the motion provides that clause 11 and schedule 2, which deal with that aspect, will be considered by a Committee of the whole House.
  An equally difficult issue, touched on earlier today, is the medical termination of pregnancy. I am advised that it falls within the scope of the Bill, although it does not appear on the face of the Bill at present. Given recent parliamentary history on that subject, as well as remarks made on Second Reading, it is realistic to assume that amendments will be moved in relation to that topic. It would be virtually impossible to make meaningful progress in a Standing Committee selected in the ordinary way after Second Reading. For that reason, on that aspect as well we need a clear view of the whole House. My motion will make that possible.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his consultations with all interested parties. Will he confirm that, following separate debates on the Floor of the House, it is unlikely that those

  987
  topics will be returned to? Will the decisions made on the Floor of the House in that respect remain more or less binding and be unaffected by the remaining Committee or Report stages? Can the Leader of the House also confirm that the membership of the Standing Committees will not be selected until the debates on the Floor of the House have taken place, so that the results of the two Divisions will be known before the Standing Committee is constituted?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's latter question is certainly yes. The composition of the Standing Committee will be decided after the House as a whole has reached a decision on the two matters in question, and it should therefore reflect the outcome of those two debates. The intention is that the topics covered by those two days of debate on the Floor of the House will not recur in Standing Committee upstairs —although it would be possible to return to them on Report.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: A moment ago, the Leader of the House said that the question of abortion does not occur in the long title of the Bill. Is he proposing that the long title should be changed to accommodate that? In what way would that be done, given that it would be an extremely unusual procedure?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not proposing any change in the long title, as I am advised that, as presently drafted, it would allow for amendments on that topic to be tabled. It is on that basis that the topic of abortion, the medical termination of pregnancy, might also come before the House.
  In addition, in order to ensure orderly proceedings, the House will see that my motion specifies the date by which amendments to clause 11 and schedule 2 and to any new clauses or new schedules are put down for consideration by the whole House. Once the two key debates have been held in a Committee of the whole House, I believe that the rest of the Bill can and should be considered in a Standing Committee whose composition can reflect, as far as possible, the decisions taken by the House as a whole.
  The remaining clauses and schedules are concerned, often in considerable detail, with introducing a licensing system and making clear the legal status of certain children. I believe that there is general agreement that those provisions are needed, although there may be real debate on exactly how they should be achieved.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for outlining the reasons for a Committee of the whole House. There might be a reason connected with that for limiting such consideration to two days, as on the motion now arising. In another motion that he is proposing to move, can he tell us why there should be another innovation, in the shape of the limitation of time in Committee? Is this not a separate innovation? Why is he proposing that in addition to the timetable motion for consideration on the Floor?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall deal with that when I deal with the timetable motion, but, in so far as it is an innovation, it is a combined set of arrangements to enable the Bill to be considered first of all with a sensible allocation of time downstairs and a further sensible period upstairs before it comes back to the Floor of the House. In
  988
  a way, that suggestion is responding to the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure for a whole timetable to be contemplated at the outset of a Bill.
  Mr. Spearing: Ah.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to have the enthusiastic support of the hon. Gentleman for such a revolutionary proposal.
  All such matters are properly matters for the Standing Committee, but there will be an opportunity for the whole House to review the results of that on Report.
  As Leader of the House, I emphasise that my main concern is to allow an orderly discussion of the issues in the Bill, including those that raise matters of conscience. I have explained the general arrangements I have proposed to that end. To assist the House further, I intend to take two additional steps on the embryo research and abortion issues.
  On embryo research, I propose to table, in my name as Leader of the House, a set of amendments designed to provide the House with an exactly similar choice on whether to allow embryo research under controlled conditions as the choice that was before another place. The House will recall that the Bill arrived in another place with two alternative clauses. The other place decided in favour of embryo research under specified conditions. The amendments I shall table will allow this House, if it so wishes, either to reverse that choice or, if it prefers, to uphold it, while preserving the other elements in the Bill.
  I emphasise, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he opened the debate, that the amendments are not designed to reflect my personal view, still less the view of the Government. The Government continue to remain neutral on the embryo research question. When the time comes, the amendments will be moved briefly and neutrally. It will be for the House, on a free vote, to decide the fate of those amendments. The House will exercise the same choice as was exercised in another place.
  Having reflected further on the details of abortion in the light of today's debate, I shall bring forward a new clause on the time limits for abortion, designed to provide a sound basis for subsequent debate and amendment. I shall do that, not on the Government's behalf or representing my own view, but in my position as Leader of the House. The new clause will not reflect the Government's view on abortion, but will be designed purely to help the House to discuss and resolve that difficult issue. I shall wish to reflect on today's debate before deciding the contents of the new clause.
  Mr. Robin Cook: In that passage, the Leader of the House has drawn a clear distinction between embryo research and the termination of pregnancy. In the Bill's long title, there are many references to embryo research. Will he guide the House to the line in the long title which has led him to the view that it would be proper to debate the termination of pregnancy within the terms of the long title or the context of the Bill?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The first two lines—essentially the second—of the long title, I am advised, represents the foundation of that debate. That advice is well founded and the object of the exercise is to enable the House to exercise

  989
  a sensible choice on that matter as the second main item of the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. I shall table the new clauses as soon as I can.
  I hope that the House will agree that the motion, handled in the way that I have described—and which represents the result of widespread discussion in all parts of the House—will provide a sensible and necessary organisation of the way the House may think through the principal, ethical questions which arise, or are likely to arise, from the Bill. On that basis, I ask the House to agree with my motion.
  10.12 pm
  Ms. Jo Richardson: I am aware that the Leader of the House has done his best to tackle the procedural difficulties which, I fear, the Government have heaped on themselves by introducing new words into the long title to allow abortion to be debated. I am aware that he has tried to consult widely and sort out that procedural point, but I oppose the procedure motion and I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.
  I shall do so not because I believe that clause 11 should be taken in Committee. I agree that the first part of the procedure motion would be handled more tidily and cleanly on the Floor of the House, and that that would underline the Government's commitment to give all hon. Members an opportunity to participate. If it is taken upstairs, it will cloud other issues in the Bill—which, I repeat, are important and should be considered. The Minister was kind enough to refer to other parts of the Bill.
  The second part of the motion, which has already been referred to, is very worrying:
  "(b) any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order paper not later than 20th April and relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners"
  should be part of the procedure motion and be taken on the Floor of the House. This is where I profoundly disagree, as, I think, will many of my hon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has already referred to a number of matters that she might have raised if there had been a wider and separate discussion about abortion. We can all say that. In my opening speech, I spelled out why I did not believe that abortion should be spatchcocked into a Bill about an entirely different matter. I shall not go over those arguments again. Suffice it to say that there is no place in what I believe is a humanitarian piece of legislation—despite the extension of the long title—for amendments on a wholly different subject.
  Many people outside have been confused and diverted from the main points of the Bill by their opposition to abortion being included in it. So I shall vote against the procedural motion and I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby. That is our only opportunity to register our extreme disapproval of the inclusion of abortion. We should like the Bill, as happened in the Lords, to stand on its own without being confused by this other issue.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are only two people who can give advice —that was the word that he used—to the Leader of the House. You are one; the other is the Clerk of the House —or one of his senior colleagues. Did you give the Leader
  990
  of the House the advice that he claims to have had? I credit you and the Clerk with too much wisdom to have confused the words "embryo" and "foetus". The title of the Bill says nothing about foetuses. Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman get his advice from? Some of us think that, linguistically, medically and scientifically, it is bad advice, whoever gave it.
  Mr. Speaker: I was not consulted on that matter. I must now put the committal motion—
  Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you were not consulted, where did the Leader of the House get his advice? If he did not get it from you, he had better take personal responsibility for it.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that I heard the Leader of the House state that he had himself taken advice on the matter.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 135.

  Division No. 152]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Allason, Rupert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Alton, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amos, Alan

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Crowther, Stan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Curry, David

  Ashby, David

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

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, David

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dixon, Don

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dover, Den

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dunn, Bob

  Beggs, Roy

  Durant, Tony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bendall, Vivian

  Eggar, Tim

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Benyon, W.

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Evennett, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

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

  Foster, Derek

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Franks, Cecil

  Burns, Simon

  Freeman, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Fry, Peter

  Butler, Chris

  Gale, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  Galloway, George

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Cash, William

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gow, Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Gregory, Conal

  991

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Grist, Ian

  Mudd, David

  Ground, Patrick

  Neubert, Michael

  Hague, William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Norris, Steve

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  O'Brien, William

  Hannam, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Page, Richard

  Harris, David

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Pawsey, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pendry, Tom

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Porter, David Waveney)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Portillo, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Price, Sir David

  Home Robertson, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Redwood, John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Irvine, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robertson, George

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kilfedder, James

  Ryder, Richard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knowles, Michael

  Shelton, Sir William

  Knox, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lambie, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lamond, James

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Latham, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speed, Keith

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Speller, Tony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lilley, Peter

  Squire, Robin

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Steen, Anthony

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stern, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

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

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mallon, Seamus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Marland, Paul

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marlow, Tony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tredinnick, David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Tripper, David

  Mills, Iain

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Vaz, Keith

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Wallace, James

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Waller, Gary

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  992

  Watts, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Kennedy, Charles

  Allen, Graham

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Leighton, Ron

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Lewis, Terry

  Barron, Kevin

  Loyden, Eddie

  Beckett, Margaret

  McAllion, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  McCartney, Ian

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McKelvey, William

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McLeish, Henry

  Blunkett, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Boateng, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Boyes, Roland

  Marek, Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Maxton, John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Meale, Alan

  Callaghan, Jim

  Michael, Alun

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Morley, Elliot

  Cohen, Harry

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Coleman, Donald

  Mullin, Chris

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Nellist, Dave

  Cousins, Jim

  O'Neill, Martin

  Cryer, Bob

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dalyell, Tam

  Patchett, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Prescott, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Doran, Frank

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Redmond, Martin

  Eadie, Alexander

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Eastham, Ken

  Richardson, Jo

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ruddock, Joan

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

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Flannery, Martin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  Short, Clare

  Foulkes, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fraser, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Fyfe, Maria

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

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Smith, J.P. (Vale of Glam)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Snape, Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Soley, Clive

  Gordon, Mildred

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Hardy, Peter

  Strang, Gavin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Haynes, Frank

  Turner, Dennis

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Walley, Joan

  Henderson, Doug

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Howells, Geraint

  Winnick, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hoyle, Doug

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Illsley, Eric

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Ingram, Adam

  Ms. Hilary Armstrong.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That

  (a) Clause 11 and Schedule 2, and

  (b) any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than 20th April and relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners,

  be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
  That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
  That, when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.
  Committee tomorrow.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will forgive us for being inquisitive about the advice given by the Leader of the House. Will you confirm that the Clerks —both here and in the other place—gave advice on the matter? If they did, is it not stretching the English language a bit far to say that the foetus could be covered by any subsequent development of the embryo? Such an extension could cover any aspect of human activity. What advice was the Leader of the House given? I think that the House is entitled to know.
  Mr. Speaker: What I said to the hon. Gentleman was that my advice had not been sought. I have no doubt, however, that the Leader of the House took advice, and the same advice is available to every hon. Member.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The advice was exactly as anticipated, from the Clerk to both Houses in both places.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (Committal)

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Allocation of Time Motion relating to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

    HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY BILL [Lords] [Money]
    Queen's Recommendation having been thus signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for payments by the Secretary of State towards the expenses of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority established by the Act.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
  10.34 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)

    Time For Committee
    1.(1) The Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the matters in respect of which the Bill is committed there shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the second of those days.
    (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to those proceedings not later than 19th April.
    (3) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.
    (4) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House, except the matters in respect of which the Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, on or before 22nd May.
    (5) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 22nd May may continue until Eleven o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 23rd May.

    Time for Report and Third Reading
    2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the second of those days.
    (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 6th June.

    Business Committee
    3.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings in Committee of the whole House and on consideration such part of the allotted days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
    (2) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in paragraph 1(2) or 2(2) of this Order, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
    (3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which the Bill or any new Clauses or new Schedules are to be considered in Committee of the whole House or on consideration, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

    Procedure in Standing Committee
    4.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
    (2) No motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
    (3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which the Bill or any new Clauses or new Schedules are to be considered in Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

    Report of proceedings in Committee
    5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or recommitted) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.
    Dilatory Motions
    6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

    Extra time on allotted days
    7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No.14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.
    (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No.20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of one hour.
    (3) If an allotted day is one to which a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of one hour.

    Private business
    8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No.14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
    Procedure at time for Conclusion of proceedings
    9. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings, other than proceedings in Committee of the whole House on any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners, which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or 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, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);

    (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper, whether in the name of a Minister of the Crown or not, which is moved or made by a Minister of the Crown;

    (d) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

    and on a motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
    10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings in Committee of the whole House on any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair:

    (b) in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a)—

    (i) the Questions on any amendments selected by the Chairman, being amendments moved to the Clause or Schedule or moved to amendments to the Clause or Schedule;

    996

    (ii) the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill;

    (c) in the case of any other new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chairman, being a Clause or Schedule for which a motion is made—

    (i) the Question that the Clause or Schedule be read a second time;

    (ii) the Questions on any amendments selected by the Chairman, being ameddments moved to the Clause or Schedule or moved to amendments to the Clause or Schedule;

    (iii) the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill.

    (2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not require the Question on any Motion or amendment to be put unless the Chairman considers it appropriate to do so or the Question has already been proposed from the Chair.
    1l.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 9 or 10 of this order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sitting of the House.
    (2) if an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

    (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

    (b) the bringing of a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedins on that Motion.

    (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

    Supplemental orders
    12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) 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 on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

    Saving
    13. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

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

    (b) prevent any business (whether on the bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

    Recommittal
    14.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
    (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or

    997
    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
    15. In this Order—
    "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the 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 Bill" means the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords];
    "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
    "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
    This is an unusual step to be taking, but that is because this is an unusual Bill. The motion has not been tabled because of the slow rate of progress in Committee, as is often the case, but at the outset of detailed consideration of the Bill.
    It is designed—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Members below the Gangway either to leave the Chamber or to listen to the Leader of the House.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The motion is designed to enable the House to debate the Bill in a structured and reasonable way. In no sense is it designed to curtail debate. It therefore should not be described as a guillotine motion. In the best sense of the word, it is a timetable motion. On that basis, I venture to hope that it is not only an unusual motion but one that will command general if not universal assent.
    There is a strong Government commitment to carry through the Bill. It deals with an aspect of life that has been radically changed by medical and scientific advance in recent times. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health said, at present there is a legislative vacuum that needs to be filled. The Bill and the debates that it is calculated to provide are designed to achieve that objective.
    The House has just agreed that consideration of the Bill in Committee should be split. The allocation of time motion is the next logical step. We wish to ensure, in Standing Committee and in particular in Committee of the whole House, that we can achieve adequate consideration of the Bill's provisions and of amendments that may be tabled to alter or to add to them.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As hon. Members have experienced use of the English language which, to say the least, was slightly unusual, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the motion will not be used to curtail other aspects of the Bill? Many hon. Members will be unhappy that debate on a Bill that clearly is about embryology should be expanded. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is advocating an unusual form of timetabling, but I hope that he will understand that it does not meet with universal approval.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The approach that I am commending has been the subject of wide consultation. A substantial amount of time will be allocated for
    998
    consideration in Standing Committee. We wish to ensure that the House is able to reach conclusions on the issues involved.
    It is very much in the interests of all hon. Members, on difficult matters of conscience such as this, that they should try to reach clear and orderly conclusions. The debates need to be full, although they need not be drawn out to interminable length. If the motion is accepted by the House, it will achieve those objectives.
    The motion allows two days in a Committee of the whole House, to be brought to a conclusion at 11 pm on each day. The Business Committee will decide, in the usual way, the allocation of available time on the Floor, but the Government intend the first day to be devoted to discussion on clause 11 and consequential amendments to schedule 2. We propose that the second day should be allocated to discussion of any amendments on the medical termination of pregnancy.
    I should re-emphasise that, like their predecessors, the Government take no collective stance on these moral questions and have made it clear that any amendments will be the subject, among Conservative Members, of a free vote. The arrangements that I propose do not reflect a Government view. They are entirely designed to enable the House to reach orderly decisions.
    Dealing thoroughly with those two topics in advance of consideration of the rest of the Bill will, I hope, have other advantages. The selection of the Standing Committee is likely to be less difficult once the House has expressed its mind on the key questions, and the substance of the debate will give the Committee a useful steer, which will help to keep it generally in line with the views of the House.
    The motion then proposes that the debates in Standing Committee should be completed by 22 May. I believe that that will allow sufficient time for a discussion of amendments on the parts of the Bill which are not to be considered by the Committee of the whole House. The Business Sub-Committee will ensure that the various parts of the Bill are given a reasonable share of the time available so that the main points at issue can be thoroughly debated and determined. The motion then provides for two full days in the House for Report and Third Reading. As the main issues of conscience will already have been voted on by the whole House in Committee, once again that should allow ample time.
    The Bill raises some complex and difficult issues, but it cannot be regarded as one of exceptional length or complexity. The timetable motion will enable the House and the Standing Committee to give full and orderly consideration to an important measure. It should enable us to reach clear conclusions on the difficult ethical issues involved and on the ways in which these new medical and scientific developments should be treated in detail. I have no doubt that this is the right course for the House to adopt. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
    10.40 pm
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not want to delay the House too long, although I should say that—perhaps unknown to many hon. Members—this timetable motion is not just unusual but, as far as I know, unique and could in future be used as a precedent. Before it is passed, we should carefully consider the implications.
    There is a well-known difference of view in the House, which has persisted for some years, about the effectiveness

    999
    of debate in Committee. There are those who believe that the Government should get their business through and that the best means of achieving the Government's aim and orderly consideration of a Bill in Committee is by the House determining a timetable before it refers the Bill to Committee. I respect that view. It is expressed in the Procedure Select Committee's report, but the House has neither debated it comprehensively nor come to a decision.
    There are, however, those who believe that such a practice is contrary to the best interests of Parliament, that it deprives any Opposition, of whatever colour, of one of their major weapons and that, if members of a Committee are sensible, it does not mean that proper consideration cannot be given to a Bill. I therefore submit that the merits of timetabling Bills in general has not yet been determined, because there has not been that necessary consideration.
    I do not think that we should debate that matter tonight. I am questioning the necessity for a timetable for Standing Committee to be introduced as part of this timetable. We know why the Leader of the House has moved a motion for the major controversial issues to be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House—I would not dissent from that. It has been a long-established practice in Finance Bills that the major matters should be debated on the Floor of the House and then the Standing Committee deals with consequential matters. I would not necessarily dissent from the timetabling of such consideration and any amendments that may be taken. There is a very good reason why that would appear to be a sensible procedure for this Bill.
    I question whether, on Second Reading, the House, even before hon. Members have discussed matters that will be raised on the Floor, should decide the date on which the Bill should be reported to the House. The Leader of the House has fully admitted that that is an innovation, but he has given no indication whether it will set a precedent or of the consequences of such a decision.
    I calculate that, if the Standing Committee met on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the timetable would allow eight or nine sittings for the consideration of the supposedly non-controversial matters in the Bill. I put it to the House, however, that even matters that are not controversial are often complex and that a judgment on them may require consultation with outside bodies. The Committee may discover unexpected features of such matters during its deliberations. They may not be connected with the views on the major matters in the Bill or with amendments debated and decided on the Floor of the House. Matters relating to the efficacy of implementation are a case in point. I have given a pledge to my constituents that I shall watch carefully the machinery for the implementation of this Bill and the efficacy of its implementation. Those matters are important and are dealt with in the so-called non-controversial parts of the Bill.
    I submit that it would be procedurally inadvisable for the House to take such a decision now for two reasons. The first is the one that I have given in relation to this Bill and the second is that such a decision may be used as a precedent in respect of the general argument about the timetabling of Bills. We have not yet had that argument or decided upon it. Let me give an example. Some of my hon. Friends are upset that matters relating to the termination of pregnancy are dealt with in a Bill introduced to deal with embryo research. It is most unfortuate that the
    1000
    Leader of the House has attached to the Bill a timetable in respect of a big question that is not directly related to the Bill.
    I am well aware that the Government want to secure the Bill's passage through Parliament. We all want that, regardless of our point of view, because at the moment there is a legal vacuum that must be filled; the whole House wants the Bill. If, as a result of a decision in Committee, one subsidiary school of thought or another wishes to delay the proceedings because it has lost the debate on the important question in Committee of the whole House, I can well understand that the Leader of the House will want the Bill to come out of Committee.
    But there are many standing Committees in which such circumstances pertain. What happens? If there is tarrying in Committee and if the Committee stage appears not to be progressing at the rate that the House would wish, a simple solution can be applied. The Leader of the House can introduce a timetable motion and say, "We want to timetable the Committee stage because the whole House wants the Bill and we want it out of Committee." That is surely the solution and the safeguard that the Leader of the House seeks tonight. In other words, his fear about progress in Committee may be well founded but I suggest that his solution is wrong, for the two reasons that I have given.
    Sir David Steel: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I spoke on Second Reading. I made the point that the course that he advocates destroys the legislative process because it means that the opening clauses of a Bill are discussed exhaustively and the remaining clauses not at all. Many of us believe that the timetable motion is a welcome innovation, provided—as appears to have happened in this case—that a consensus is reached on what constitutes a reasonable time for the consideration of the Bill. I have so far heard no argument to suggest that the timing proposed by the Leader of the House is unreasonable.
    Mr. Spearing: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) intervened, because he has illustrated the very point that I was making earlier. There are general views about the timetabling of Committees. The right hon. Gentleman has views about that, to which he is fully entitled. I do not want to enter into an argument with him, but I question his phrase "reasonable time". Who is to decide what is a reasonable time in Committee when complex matters, perhaps involving scientific or medical issues in which hon. Members are not necessarily expert, may arise? If the right hon. Gentleman wants the Bill to be dealt with properly in Standing Committee—something that we all want—it does not help matters to say that the Bill should be out of Committee by 22 May.
    Although I did not hear the earlier remarks of the right. hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, I suspect that they verged on the main debate about timetabling instead of being of relevance to the Bill.
    The motion seeks to put a time limit on days in Committee which may mean that the Committee will decide to meet more often than on Tuesdays and Thursdays and sit late into the night to conclude its business—and that is not always the best way to deal with Committee matters. It also limits us to two days for Report

    1001
    and Third Reading. Matters other than the controversial issues relating to the working of the Bill may need more time on consideration and Third Reading.
    Timetabling consideration of the Bill on the Floor of the House is going too far. If the Bill is obstructed, the remedy lies with the Leader of the House, and perhaps even I would agree with that remedy. However, it is not clear that that remedy is necessary, and the motion is premature. I ask hon. Members who believe in parliamentary democracy and the freedom of this House to discuss matters, unless and until a case is made for truncating debate, to vote against this timetabling motion.
    10.51 pm
    Sir David Price: I want to make a short, but I hope pertinent, point that should appeal to the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who intervened on points of order. I do not understand how we can meaningfully discuss any part of the Bill, and particularly clause 11 and schedule 2, without discussing clause 1 first, as that defines the terms that are used.
    Clause 1 is headed "Principal terms used". I will not deploy the arguments that I would deploy if we were discussing the definition of "embryo". However, my point is pertinent to discussing the remainder of the Bill. I do not believe that we can pluck out certain bits and discuss them until we have settled what we mean by the terms. It is clear that there is already confusion about that.
    In relation to clause 11, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House referred to putting conscience into the law. However, if conscience is to be meaningful in law, it must be concise. Will my right hon. and learned Friend amend the arrangements so that we may refer to and amend clause 1 if necessary? That should be the business of the whole House. Before the Committee discusses the remainder of the Bill in detail, hon. Members should know what they are talking about. That is a matter of definition. Given that my right hon. and learned Friend had a classical and scientific education, he will know the need for precision in construe.
    10.53 pm
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am flattered by the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) to my classical and scientific education. However, even that did not convince me of his point.
    The Bill is relatively unusual, and in the modern style, in having its definition clause at the beginning rather than at the end. In most Bills that have been debated in the House over many years, it has been a matter of routine for the House to debate the definition clauses after it has debated everything else. If that happens in this case, it will not be unusual or earth-shattering. The House will certainly be able to do it in that way.
    Sir David Price: Do I gather that my right hon. and learned Friend will allow hon. Members to discuss clause 1 and that there would be greater virtue in putting the definition at the beginning of the Bill? As I understand it, we shall discuss clause 11 and schedule 2—schedule 2 will be very detailed—before we discuss clause 1.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said, that will be in accordance with the normal practice on many Bills over many years. The definition clause is normally at the end of a Bill. I have often argued for definition clauses to be at the beginning of Bills, and this change is welcome, but there is no reason to be worried about it.
    As for the more general points on the timetable motion, I was glad that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) acknowledged that my fears were well-founded and that it was sensible to look ahead pre-emptively at the management of the Bill. I was grateful for the intervention by the former leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who said that my purpose was legitimate. However, I emphasise that I have not introduced the motion out of some whimsical fantasy of my own. I have introduced it after widespread consultation with people on behalf of all parties.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: It is a free vote.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course it is a free vote on the substance, but for the free vote on the substance to take place I have canvassed very widely to determine the best way of doing it.
    I was asked how long the process will take and who will decide how long it will take. I have done my best to ascertain how long it should reasonably take. I am offering that view to the House, and the House will decide. The House should be willing to respond favourably to my suggestion, which is based on a widespread canvassing of opinion that has not been challenged in any way.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Surely the point is simple. It is to be a free vote. Every individual hon. Member should have the right to decide according to his or her own conscience and his or her own information. It is useless to say that there has been wide consultation when each individual must be responsible for his or her own vote. The Leader of the House has not consulted, because he has used what is known as the usual machinery, which, frankly, does not always consult hon. Members who want to have a say.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: With respect, the hon. Lady misses the point. Of course the votes on the matters of substance will be free votes, but the vote now is how we set a framework for those votes to be taken. I have canvassed opinion, not just through the usual channels, whom the hon. Lady chooses to regard as disreputable and inaccurate. I have not canvassed all 650 hon. Members, but I have canvassed a wide range of opinion and I have come to the conclusion that I now place before the House. There is now an opportunity for hon. Members to vote on the proposal that I now leave before the House.
    Mr. Spearing: I agree with the Leader of the House that, on the general difficulties of bifurcation and bringing a Bill into a Committee of the whole House for two days, even for a timetable of two days, he may have consulted to some extent. On balance, that is probably the right solution. Can he assure the House that he carried out equal consultation on the specific features that I referred to in my speech? Could not potential difficulties be better dealt with by a post-Second Reading timetable motion, if it were necessary? That knowledge would surely be in the minds of hon. Members on the Committee.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is a post-Second Reading timetable motion. The essential difference in what I am now proposing and what is more often the case was identified by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. The normal way of arriving at a timetable motion is for the House or the Committee to grind slowly through the first clause—take days and weeks doing that —and then find itself hurrying like mad to consider the rest of the Bill. The Procedure Committee recommended a different approach to avoid that.
    In the light of that advice and in the light of the conclusions that I have arrived at, having talked to several people about it, I see no reason why one should not attempt a common sense way of dealing with this Bill. I am grateful for taking the hon. Member for Newham, South as far as I have in agreeing with me. I commend my motion to the House as the most sensible way to proceed.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 62.

    Division No. 153]

    [11 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Eggar, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Evennet, David

    Allason, Rupert

    Fallon, Michael

    Alton, David

    Favell, Tony

    Amess, David

    Fearn, Ronald

    Amos, Alan

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Ashby, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Atkinson, David

    Forth, Eric

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Foster, Derek

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Franks, Cecil

    Batiste, Spencer

    Freeman, Roger

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fry, Peter

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gale, Roger

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Gill, Christopher

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Goodland, Alastair

    Bottomley, Peter

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Gow, Ian

    Bowis, John

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Gregory, conal

    Brazier, Julian

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Bright, Graham

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

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

    Ground, Patrick

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hague, William

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Burns, Simon

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butler, Chris

    Hannam, John

    Butterfill, John

    Hardy, Peter

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Carrington, Matthew

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Home Robertson, John

    Conway, Derek

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howells, Geraint

    Cran, James

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

    Irvine, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jack, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Janman, Tim

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jessel, Toby

    Dover, Den

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Durant, Tony

    Kennedy, Charles

    1004

    Key, Robert

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kilfedder, James

    Robertson, George

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Knapman, Roger

    Rowe, Andrew

    Knowles, Michael

    Ryder, Richard

    Lambie, David

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lamond, James

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Latham, Michael

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shelton, Sir William

    Lightbown, David

    Shersby, Michael

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Sims, Roger

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Speller, Tony

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Squire, Robin

    McCrindle, Robert

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maclean, David

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Steen, Anthony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stern, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Stevens, Lewis

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Mans, Keith

    Summerson, Hugo

    Marlow, Tony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Thurnham, peter

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Tracey, Richard

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Tripper, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trotter, Neville

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Neale, Gerrard

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Neubert, Michael

    Wallace, James

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Waller, Gary

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Norris, Steve

    Warren, Kenneth

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Watts, John

    Pawsey, James

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Whitney, Ray

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Portillo, Michael

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Price, Sir David

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Raffan, Keith

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Redwood, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Mr. Greg Knight and

    Riddick, Graham

    Mr. Irvine Patnick.

    NOES

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Fyfe, Maria

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Barron, Kevin

    Gordon, Mildred

    Beckett, Margaret

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Bradley, Keith

    Haynes, Frank

    Buchan, Norman

    Henderson, Doug

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cohen, Harry

    Kinnick, Rt Hon Neil

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Leighton, Ron

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cousins, Jim

    McCartney, Ian

    Cryer, Bob

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Meale, Alan

    Dixon, Don

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Flannery, Martin

    Morley, Elliot

    Flynn, Paul

    Mullin, Chris

    1005

    O'Neill, Martin

    Spearing, Nigel

    Patchett, Terry

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pike, Peter L.

    Strang, Gavin

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Turner, Dennis

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Winnick, David

    Richardson, Jo

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Rogers, Allan

    Young, Mrs Audrey

    Rooker, Jeff

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    and Ms. Hilary Armstrong.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    That the draft Transport (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
    Question agreed to.

  Immunisation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Goodlad.]
  11.10 pm
  Mr. John Hannam: This Adjournment debate gives me the opportunity to draw attention to a matter of extreme importance in the context of the health of our nation. Vaccinations against serious diseases have been part of our lives for many years, and the worldwide campaign against smallpox, polio and diphtheria has resulted in the near eradication of those awful illnesses.
  However, when it comes to other diseases such as whooping cough, measles and rubella, the picture is not as rosy, and I shall explain why the Department of Health should go further in promoting greater take-up of immunisation.
  In 1940, before the vaccination programme got under way in England and Wales, 857 children died of measles and 678 of whooping cough. Many more were left disabled and ill. In the 1970s, when the whooping cough vaccine scare peaked as a consequence of the widespread publicity given to the vaccine damage compensation campaign, vaccination rates dropped to 30 per cent. at one point. and the old cycle of whooping cough epidemics began to return.
  As recently as 1986, there were 36,500 notifications of whooping cough, which probably represented some 40 per cent. of the actual number of cases. That year, there were more cases of whooping cough in the United Kingdom than in the United States of America. Since then, matters have improved and immunisation rates have increased—although it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of national immunisation policy year after year without relevant records of the number of deaths or cases of disablement caused through non-vaccination. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health to provide those figures, so that a benchmark can be established for years to come.
  I confirm from my own discussions with constituents in recent days that families whose children were not given the whooping cough vaccine in the 1970s because of the scare campaign report without exception that there is among their children a high incidence of asthma following earlier attacks of whooping cough. I hope that my hon. Friend is aware of the longer-term effects of such diseases, even if they are not fatal. I certainly want to avoid a
  long-drawn-out public battle for compensation for those very few who suffered possible reaction to the earlier vaccines, but it must make sense to provide adequate compensation and to ensure the efficacy of the whole immunisation programme.
  I am pleased to note that figures published recently by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary show a further improvement in uptake rates in England and Wales, to 80 per cent. for measles vaccination, although that still means that one child in five remains unprotected, and to 75 per cent. for whooping cough, though with one child in four left unprotected.
  The World Health Organisation's target for Europe in 1990 is 90 per cent., so Britain still falls well short. Worse still, the averages conceal substantial variations from district to district, with take-up in inner-city areas such as Hackney and Newham in London as low as 51 per cent., and in the low 60s in Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester
  1008
  and Blackburn. For some groups, particularly ethnic ones and those in inner cities, this means that one in two children in such areas are not being vaccinated. Is my hon. Friend aware that the reason given for non-vaccination is usually apathy rather than resistance to it? The result in human terms is tragic if children die or suffer disability from preventable diseases.
  It was because of a growing concern among many people working in medical research that Action Research for the Crippled child, on whose council I sit, last year commissioned an in-depth study by Professor Catherine Peckham into the factors influencing immunisation uptake in childhood. Her excellent report was published in April 1989. My purpose in seeking this debate tonight is to re-acquaint the Department of Health with the key recommendations in the Peckham report and to seek my hon. Friend's assurance that they are being given the most urgent consideration with a view to achieving and, more importantly, sustaining total protection from the preventable, infectious diseases of childhood. It is ironic that we spend millions of pounds researching new vaccines when we are not utilising the ones that we already have to full effect.
  The Peckham study was based in 16 different district health authorities and random samples from general practitioners, consultant paediatricians, health visitors and clinical medical officers working in child health were taken. Some 2,071 health professionals were contacted and 86 per cent. responded. In addition, from each district, a sample of two-year-old children was drawn from six randomly selected general practices. That age group was chosen because the children should have completed their primary course of immunisation and the parents would have recent memory of it. Of 3,871 parents approached. 87 per cent. responded.
  The Peckham report has effectively pointed the way for us to go if we really intend to translate a 99 per cent. parental consent for their child to be included in the immunisation system into achieving the World Health Organisation target of 90 per cent. actual uptake by next year.
  The principal findings of the study were clear. First, health professionals demonstrated uncertainty about the contra-indications to measles and whooping cough immunisation. Their responses indicated inconsistency in the interpretation of contra-indications within and between professional groups. That has two important consequences—an unacceptable proportion of children are being denied immunisation for invalid reasons, and parents are being given conflicting advice.
  Secondly, parents' attitudes had a marked effect on measles and pertussis vaccine uptake. A parent who thought measles was a serious disease and that the vaccine was safe and effective was much more likely to have his child immunised than the one who thought otherwise. Perceptions of the safety of pertussis vaccine was shown to be particularly important in determining uptake of it.
  Family factors found to be associated with lower uptake included a large family, the presence of a chronically ill child and lower social class. The individual perception of a disease is important and, as immunisation rates increase and the disease becomes less common, the public forget the seriousness of it and may regard it as rare and trivial.

  1009
  Measles is frequently viewed as a trivial childhood illness, yet it is associated with significant morbidity and even death. It is the most common cause of death in children in remission from leukaemia.
  As the study was carried out on a large randomly selected population with a very high response rate from parents and health professionals, the results can be generalised to apply to the entire country. Overall, health professionals had a positive attitude to immunisation and said that they encouraged it. One of the main obstacles to a child being immunised was the general practitioners' misconceptions about contra-indications to immunisation. It is estimated that only 1 per cent. of children have valid contra-indications to the measles vaccine and 3.5 pet cent. to the pertussis vaccine. It is clear that many children are being deprived of immunisation because health professionals inappropriately consider certain conditions or circumstances to be contra-indications.
  Unless there are genuine contra-indications to vaccination—and there are few—it is irresponsible to fail to protect a child from a potentially damaging infection. The decision to withhold vaccination should be taken only after serious consideration of the consequences for the child and the community. It is partly the responsibility of practitioners to ensure that their knowledge of vaccination is up to date, but they cannot be held totally responsible for their uncertainty. Official guidelines have tended to be complicated and to leave excessive margins of doubt. I believe that the Department is intent on improving those guidelines, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that tonight.
  My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a wealth of additional detail provided by the Peckham report, which I have neglected in the interests of brevity. I conclude my references to the report by drawing attention to the summary of recommendations in the letter of the director general of Action Research for the Crippled Child on 11 July 1989, which pointed specifically to two or three fundamental requirements confirmed when the report was first subjected to professional scrutiny during a workshop convened by the Prince of Wales advisory group on disability last June.
  It received unequivocal support from the Prince of Wales, when he said of the workshop's conclusions:
  "What seems to emerge clearly (from the Peckham Report and the discussion of it) is that our performance will only improve sufficiently—and be maintained—by introducing certain basic changes to the current system."
  Earlier, I mentioned the high take-up rate in the United States. There, laws require proof of immunity as a condition of school entry. The result is that, whereas the United Kingdom has 80,000 to 100,000 notifications of measles each year, the United States averaged about 1,500 to 6,000 cases each year between 1981 and 1987. In the south-west of England, in my area, in 1986 we had more cases than in the whole of the United States. It is on the basis of a proven system, linked to school entry, that this country must proceed if it is to achieve the 90 or 95 per cent. measles immunisation rate.
  The policy being advocated is not compulsion but one which, at the very least, puts parents in the position of having to make a definite decision about immunising their child. That would ensure that only those children who should not be vaccinated for sound medical reasons, or
  1010
  those whose parents objected strongly for other reasons, were excluded from the protection which should be their right. It is evident from the strength of parent input to the report that responsibility for immunisation shared with the parent would be welcomed.
  Standard parent-held records would be necessary to achieve that and would provide the mechanism for reviewing immunisation status at regular intervals during early childhood. Children should certainly be immunised at the earliest possible age, but for those who might otherwise fall through the net, a requirement to present the immunisation record before enrolment to day care, nursery school or secondary school, would ensure review of their immunisation status. Those children found not to be immunised should be vaccinated, provided that there are no valid contra-objections or parental objections.
  It is my contention, and the strongly held view of the all-party disablement group, that the linchpin in a future immunisation system will be the introduction of a health record for every child, issued on registration of birth and related only to immunisation status, perhaps not dissimilar to the international certificate of vaccination issued as a requirement for entry to many countries when smallpox was still a threat. I still have my old certificate of vaccination in my passport in case I have to produce it on a visit to some part of the world.
  Once high levels of immunisation uptake have been achieved, it is essential to maintain them. One cannot rely on repeated campaigns to effect that, and we should act responsibly to ensure a mechanism for the certain protection of future generations.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the pilot study carried out by a number of health authorities and also on the accelerated schedule of primary immunisations at two, three and four months. However, I hope that he does not reply tonight that the Department is about to launch another publicity campaign. If we are to protect future generations from unnecessary death and disability, we need a straightforward policy of guidance for the practitioners and health record cards for the parents. Action Research for the Crippled Child and Catherine Peckham have shown the way, and I hope that my hon. Friend will follow their path.
  11.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for his clear presentation of this subject. The House knows of his work with the all-party disablement group, which gives him a special expertise in this matter. I know that he is concerned not only for his constituents in Exeter, but for the children of the whole population. I agree with the basic thrust of his remarks, that parents should have their children immunised. The risks that he identified, especially in relation to pertussis, are modest indeed compared with the great benefits that flow from immunisation.
  I should like to give my hon. Friend the most up-to-date statistics, for which he asked. Over recent years, immunisation uptake rates have been rising and the most recently available figures—for England for the year 1988–89—show that the uptake for polio, diphtheria and tetanus vaccines is now 87 per cent., measles vaccine uptake is 80 per cent. and that for pertussis vaccine, for whooping cough, 75 per cent.

  1011
  Given the rate of rise of these figures, and the fact that the measles uptake figure precedes the introduction of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, which my hon. Friend will recall is now being offered to children just about to enter school, as well as to youngsters, we now have real prospects of reaching the 90 per cent. 1990 uptake targets set by the European region of the World Health Organisation—targets that are important milestones on the road to the elimination of these diseases, which is targeted for the year 2000. We have already achieved the elimination of poliomyelitis from this country and I am pleased to report that this success is recognised by the World Health Organisation, which lists us among the category A countries in which this disease no longer exists. Some other European countries have some way to go before they achieve that recognition.
  In October 1988, we launched a new combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine with the objective of improving measles uptake, eliminating mumps and the congenital rubella syndrome, a serious consequence of maternal rubella infection, which leaves babies who may be born blind or deaf with congenital heart disease or mentally handicapped. Although it is too early to measure the impact of this initiative on immunisation uptake, there are other measures available to us that give us reason to consider this initiative a considerable success.
  The new vaccine has been recommended for the priority groups of children—those aged 12 to 15 months—in place of the previous measles vaccine, and for those aged four to five years coming for their pre-school booster immunisations. If every such child was to be immunised, we would have needed 1·5 million doses for the period October 1988 to January 1990. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, over that same period, we distributed in excess of 3 million doses—more than twice the required amount. This enthusiastic use of vaccine suggests that it has been given not only to the priority children but to many others, and this will interrupt transmission of measles, mumps and rubella even sooner than we predicted.
  Immunisation uptake provides a sensitive indicator for performance of the provision of immunisation services, but it measures the route through which our goals will be reached. Notification of diseases, and indeed their absence, provide the outcome measures that we seek to achieve. It gives me pleasure, therefore, to be able to report how our efforts to promote immunisation are producing very encouraging results for outcomes. Since the introduction of MMR vaccine, notifications of measles have been at the lowest levels ever. When 1990 is compared with 1988 and 1986—these are the appropriate years for comparison because of the cycle of the affliction—we find that notifications for the appropriate months are about 90 per cent. fewer than four years ago—a remarkable achievement. Every week there are significantly fewer children suffering the frequently underestimated and potentially very serious complications of measles.
  We can see similar successes in the notifications for whooping cough. On the basis of previous epidemics, it could have been thought likely that there would be a whooping cough upsurge over the winter of 1989–90. Although notifications did rise last year, they reached their peak in the same months as the 1985 epidemic, but there were 70 per cent. fewer notifications, again suggesting that the successful promotion of immunisation has led to so many more children being protected from serious diseases.
  1012
  My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the new contract for doctors came into force today. This is the first working day of that new contract and he will be aware that incentive payments for immunisation are built into it. I know that he supports that principle.
  The incentive payments in the contract cover only three immunisations: whooping cough, diphtheria-tetanus and polio; these vaccinations tend to run together, in that they are given at the same time. DT and polio is the second and measles is the third. We use measles as a proxy for the MMR vaccination. We take whooping cough, DT, polio and measles and for children aged two on a doctor's list, we make a calculation every quarter day by averaging the doctor's success with those three lines, using the completing dose.
  My hon. Friend will know that there are three doses for DT, polio and whooping cough, and we make a payment on each quarter day. If the doctor achieves a 70 per cent. target figure, a quarterly payment, which over the year adds up to £579, is made. If a 90 per cent. target figure is reached for the averages of all three, a quarterly payment, which in the coming financial year will be £1,737 for the year, will be made.
  There is a second target for five-year-olds, where we measure success in relation to the second diphtheria vaccination—the booster—and also tetanus and polio. A 70 per cent. success rate brings a payment of £193 over a year, and a 90 per cent. uptake results in a payment of £579. That information may be helpful, because I do not think that we have put it on the record as clearly as I hope I have outlined.
  My hon. Friend spoke about the Peckham report. Although, as I have said, uptake figures are rising, in some areas they remain too low. I think that my hon. Friend cited some inner-city areas in Liverpool and London. The Department of Health undertook careful investigation last year into the reasons for poor performance and, along with other measures, commissioned a study of the management of the immunisation programme in every health authority.
  The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation consists of clinical professionals and is a multi-disciplinary group advising the four territorial departments of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That committee carefully considered the reasons that lay behind the difficulties preventing higher uptake and has recommended that the schedule of primary immunisations be changed to an accelerated schedule used in all health authorities. This new schedule will start from May. The benefits that it will offer will be the likelihood of higher acceptance rates, earlier protection against whooping cough, fewer opportunities for immunisation to be postponed because of minor illnesses and greater convenience for parents as the immunisations will be given over the period when infants are brought regularly to clinics and before mothers return to work.
  From memory, I am referring now to immunisations at two, three and four months after birth, as opposed to the longer period which currently exists and which can range up to 11 months or more. Professor Peckham has welcomed that change. After Easter, the Department of Health will issue a new edition of the memorandum "Immunisation against Infectious Disease". That is a green document which I am sure my hon. Friend has read. It provides details of the new schedule along with authoritative guidance on contra-indications, both

  1013
  genuine and false, and adverse events associated with immunisation. I shall send a copy of this document to my hon. Friend and also place a copy in the Library. I hope that, when he sees it, he will feel that I have answered his questions about greater guidance being given on contra-indications, which simply means medical reasons for children not being able to receive appropriate vaccinations.
  In the autumn, there will be a national advertising campaign, promoted by the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority, to promote immunisation as the safest way to protect one's child. The campaign, which is being piloted in the Granada Television region, will use television advertising, along with material in newspapers and magazines.
  Last year, Action Research for the Crippled Child published a valuable report on immunisation. Professor Catherine Peckham carried out the inquiry on its behalf. The report confirmed previous research that identified poor knowledge of immunisation contra-indications, undue fears over adverse effects, especially associated with pertussis vaccine for whooping cough, and lack of consistency of immunisation advice.
  The Peckham report made recommendations, some of which relate to matters at health authority level that the Department of Health would support. The forthcoming change of the immunisation schedule will result in all children being given their immunisations according to an agreed national timetable—one of the report's main recommendations.
  The report also recommends the availability of parent-held records of child health that would document the immunisation that a child has received. My hon. Friend's arguments were very persuasive. I am grateful to him for underlining the value that he believes a parent-held record card would provide. I am persuaded by his arguments. Such cards are on trial. My Department will be most interested in the outcome of the trials. I shall follow the results of those trials with a close personal interest. Furthermore, the Department of Health will shortly be issuing new immunisation record cards for all family practitioners to ensure that they are able to keep accurate immunisation records on all their patients.
  Although the Peckham report does not recommend legal compulsion or school exclusion of unimmunised children—it recommends that, before school entry, the
  1014
  immunisation records of all children should be checked and that unimmunised children should be offered immunisation, a process facilitated by parent-held records —there are countries such as the United States where immunisation is, in effect, compulsory. Yet there are, equally, countries such as Holland and the Scandinavian countries where the uptake rates are exceptionally high without any form of compulsion. Moreover, those high rates are achieved before the age of two—that is, before the transmission of the appropriate diseases.
  Although the United States policy initially led to dramatic reductions in measles, mumps and rubella notification, the United States is presently experiencing the worst outbreak of measles for many years. Many of these cases are occurring in children below the age of school entry, whose parents have delayed immunisation until it is compulsory. The lesson, perhaps, of the problem is that school entry measures may be too late to interrupt measles transmission and that the greatest successes will come from the attainment of the highest levels of uptake as early in life as possible—preferably without compulsion, but with the full support of doctors and parents alike.
  My hon. Friend referred to the problem in the inner cities, where the uptake rate is undeniably low. The new contract which runs from today provides for much higher allowances—the so-called deprivation allowances—to be paid to the general practitioner for having a patient list in such areas. They amount to £8·50 a head, which can provide up to £17,000 a year for a doctor with an average patient list. That is a real additional resource to enable doctors to fight hard to increase the uptake of immunisation and cervical screening.
  I understand my hon. Friend's views on publicity and campaigning. However, I believe that they have a part to play, in addition to the national campaign in the autumn, to which I referred. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall reflect carefully on whether we need to take specific measures in relation to the ethnic minority community, particularly Asian mothers who, in some parts of the country, may need to be persuaded about the value of immunising their children. Some success has been achieved, but more needs to be done.
  I join my hon. Friend in underlining the central message that, for a safe childhood, parents must, for heaven's sake, immunise their children.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Coastal Railway Lines
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contingency transport plans exist in the event of storms destroying railways that run alongside the sea.

  Mr. Portillo
  Railway operations are the responsibility of British Rail, which has drawn up contingency plans covering a wide range of possible events. In the case of the recent flooding of the railway line at Towyn, full rail services were resumed after six days. British Rail operated a local bus service while rail services were disrupted.

  Dunstable-Luton Railway Line
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, following further representations from the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West he has yet heard from British Rail as to whether it intends to re-open the Dunstable to Luton railway line for passenger traffic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail management are continuing to appraise several options but they tell me that there has been a delay due to the heavy demands on the staff and computer programmes involved in appraising new projects. It will, I regret, be some time yet before they are in a position to take a decision.

  Inventions and Proposals
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy for assessing transport proposals, inventions and ideas put up by members of the public to address particular transport problems.

  Mr. Atkins
  Where ideas or suggestions relate to my Department's responsibilities, they are naturally subject to analysis by my officials. Otherwise they are passed on to the appropriate public transport operator or local highway authority.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on part-funding research and development of proposals, inventions and ideas proposed by(a) the private sector and (b) private individuals.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department welcomes proposals, inventions and ideas for research and development. Practical assistance is being made available by the Department, in association with the Science and Engineering Research Council under a new £5·9 million LINK transport infrastructure and operations programme to be announced very shortly.

  Under this programme, aimed specifically at small to medium-sized businesses and individuals, up to half the
  382
  cost of transport research projects can be made available. It is intended that this combination of public and private funding will stimulate a net increase in research into basic transport-related processes and technologies. However the costs of developing specific products for the market place must be borne by the companies and individuals concerned.

  Road Works
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is being taken to improve the co-ordination of statutory undertakers' road works.

  Mr. Atkins
  Statutory undertakers' rights to excavate in roads in order to lay and maintain their apparatus are governed by the street works code in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. The Government accept that a fundamental reform of this legislation as recommended by the Home report is required. A Bill will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found. This will include a new duty on highway authorities to co-ordinate all excavations in the highway with a view to minimising the disruption to road users and avoiding undesirable combinations of excavations.

  Road Pricing Schemes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will investigate the effectiveness or otherwise of Sweden's road pricing scheme and its implications for future United Kingdom road transport policy.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department monitors a wide range of developments in the transport field and as part of its brief will keep developments in road pricing in Scandinavia and elsewhere under review.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations have submitted correspondence on road pricing schemes since the beginning of the year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  A wide range of organisations and individuals have corresponded on the subject of road pricing since the beginning of the year. A number of organisations discussed road pricing and other forms of restraint in their responses to "Traffic in London" and the London assessment studies.

  Ferries (Safety)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received the report and recommendations of the steering committee supervising his Department's programme of research into the safety of roll-on roll-off passenger ferries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Immediately after the Herald of Free Enterprise capsised outside Zeebrugge harbour in March 1987 the then Secretary of State announced a public inquiry into the causes of the disaster.

  The Sheen inquiry reported in July 1987, and its recommendations have been vigorously followed up by the Department. Firstly, by legislation, both in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and in no less than eight sets of statutory instruments laying new requirements on United

  383
  Kingdom-flag ships. Only one issue—concerning the detail of cargo securing—is still under review. Most of these requirements have also been extended to non-United Kingdom ro-ro passenger ships operating into United Kingdom ports.

  Secondly, by requiring all United Kingdom-flag ferries not only to meet all current international stability standards, but in addition, and irrespective of age, to meet the United Kingdom residual stability standards introduced for new vessels in 1980. These standards exceed those applicable to foreign-flag ships, including those trading into United Kingdom ports. All but a handful of the older United Kingdom ships, which are at present being phased out, now meet these higher standards.

  The third main Sheen recommendation was for a programme of research to examine the capability of ro-ro passenger ships to survive after sustaining collision damage. It should be noted that Sheen did not imply that current standards of intact stability were inadequate. In fact, all present evidence suggests that any undamaged United Kingdom ferry which complies with today's prescribed standards of intact stability and is operated in a proper and reasonable manner will successfully withstand the rigours of wind and sea likely to be encountered.

  The Department of Transport made available £1 million for the research programme. To assist and advise the Department in the management of this programme, a steering committee, including eminent naval architects, was established. I am pleased to say that this important work has now been completed and I have received the steering committee's report. I have today placed copies of the report in the Library, and arranged for copies to be sent to interested parties.

  The research programme, carried out by contractors selected by open tender, considered the risks of travel on passenger ro-ro ships; collision resistance; future hull design; internal structure; and how far existing ships met design standards for survivability recently adopted by the IMO and to come into force in April 1990 in respect of new passenger ships. In addition, models were tested in various wave conditions to determine the standards of stability necessary to provide protection against the possibility of rapid capsize of damaged vessels.

  An overview report was commissioned to draw together and summarise the results of the research. This report comments in detail on each project, and on the various measures proposed for enhancing survivability, in terms of practicability, benefit and cost. A great deal of valuable information has emerged which should help designers and operators to develop the most suitable ways of improving the survival capability of ro-ro passenger ships. A copy of this overview accompanies the steering committee's report.

  The main conclusions and recommendations in the steering committee's report are:
  (a) that the new internationally agreed standards of residual stability after damage, applicable to all passenger ships built after 29 April 1990, appear to provide reasonable protection against rapid capsize, the United Kingdom should make the report and the overview publicly available. It should be offered to IMO and designers so that account can be taken of the various measures which, if incorporated in future designs, would enable vessels to meet the higher stability standards;
  (b) that current international standards are not sufficient to rule out the possibility of capsize in respect of existing
  384
  ferries, the United Kingdom should request IMO to give urgent consideration to the adoption of a higher standard of residual stability for existing ships;
  (c) if it does not prove possible to achieve early international agreement on an acceptable level of residual stability for existing ro-ro passenger ships, and if the discussions in the IMO forum become unduly protracted, the UK should initiate discussions with European marine administrations. Should that approach fail then the UK should consider the possibility of unilaterally introducing higher standards of residual stability for all existing ro-ro passenger ships operating into UK ports regardless of flag;
  (d) to assist international consideration, full details of the results of the research programme should be submitted to the fifty-eighth session of the IMO maritime safety committee (21-25 May 1990);
  (e) further model testing should be carried out with a view to validating conclusions of the theoretical studies on the value of the various measures investigated to improve survivability;
  (f) ship designers should be urged to pay special attention to the study on collision resistance, and the importance of stem construction and profile shape particularly when bulbous bows are fitted, as they can present a special hazard in the event of collision;
  (g) the Department should commend the IMO guidelines for safe ship management for adoption by the industry.

  I have already taken steps to ensure that these proposals are considered at the IMO maritime safety committee meeting this May. In addition, in order to promote discussion of this very important work, an international symposium devoted entirely to the results of the research programme will be held in London on 26-27 April. I am pleased that the Royal Institution of Naval Architects has agreed to co-sponsor this event, and I expect it to have a major impact internationally on the further development of ro-ro passenger ferry safety.

  Learner Drivers (Supervision)
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to complete consideration of his proposals to amend the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations qualifying the age and experience of those who are supervising learner drivers.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are currently considering the reponses to our consultation document. In the light of those, I shall consult shortly on the necessary regulations with a view to bringing them into effect this summer.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to introduce a more flexible policy on road signs for tourist sites and other tourist attractions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Signs to tourist destinations are traffic signs which are prescribed by regulations subject to confirmation by Parliament. Policy and guidance on the provision of tourist signs are currently being reviewed in consultation with the English tourist board and the local authority associations. Following this we shall be consulting more widely with a view to an announcement by the autumn.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much spent nuclear fuel is transported by road through Clwyd via the A5.
  385
  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 29 March,Official Report, column 272.

  Company-assisted Travel
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to take into account the material used, and conclusions reached by, the study commissioned from Earth Resources Research Ltd. by Friends of the Earth into the financial and environmental costs of such vehicles in his commissioned research into company-assisted travel.

  Mr. Atkins
  The professional research commissioned by the Department is based on surveys of the travelling public and it would be inappropriate to incorporate material from other studies. The question of company car taxation is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, in so far as the research by Earth Resources Research Ltd. affects my Department's responsibilities, I shall be happy to take its findings into account.

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the likely final cost of the completed improvement works to the existing Severn crossing.

  Mr. Atkins
  The final cost of stengthening and resurfacing the Severn crossing is estimated at £70 million.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the progress to date and likely completion date of improvement and strengthening work to the existing Severn crossing.

  Mr. Atkins
  Strengthening work on the Severn crossing will be completed during the course of 1990. Resurfacing of the crossing is due to be completed by early 1991.

  Efficiency Unit
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further progress he has made towards the implementation in his Department of the recommendations in the efficiency unit's report entitled, "Improving Management in Government: The Next Step"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I am today establishing three further executive agencies in my Department: the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA). I am delegating clear responsibilities for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and customer services to the chief executives. Those delegations are set out in the agencies' published framework documents; I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Each year, I shall set these agencies demanding financial and service targets, and those targets will be published in annual business plans. I have arranged for copies of the 1990–91 business plans to be placed in the Library. The agencies will also publish annual reports; again copies will be put in the Library.

  DVLA has some 5,500 staff, the majority based at its headquarters in Swansea. It is responsible for the registration and licensing of vehicles and drivers, and for the collection and enforcement of vehicle excise duty. Following an open competition I am appointing Mr.
  386
  Stephen Curtis, formerly chief executive of Companies House, to be DVLA's first chief executive. DSA is responsible for the testing of drivers and driving instructors. Most of its 2,000 staff are driving examiners, who conduct driving tests from the nationwide network of driving test centres. I am appointing Dr. Christopher Woodman to be DSA's first chief executive. VCA is a small specialised organisation less than 100 strong, which is responsible for testing new models of vehicles and vehicle parts for conformity to specific safety and environmental standards. Most of its staff are based at its headquarters in Bristol. I am appointing Mr. Derek Harvey as VCA's first chief executive.

  I wish the chief executives and their staffs every success for the future. I am confident that the enhanced responsibilities which they will have in the areas of finance, contracts and personnel, will enable them to meet their twin objectives of providing yet further improvements in service to the public while giving better value for money.

  Where hon. or right hon. Members have queries about matters relating to the operation of those agencies, I hope they will write in the first instance to the chief executives. I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for roads and traffic will of course continue to deal with questions of policy or where there is dissatisfaction with an agency's reply.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    "Next Steps"
    Sir Hal Miller
    To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about the progress of the "next steps" initiative.

    Mr. Luce
    The "next steps" initiative which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched in February 1988 continues to go well, and is starting to deliver results.

    There will be 30 agencies established by the end of this week, covering some 66,000 people. We expect more to be set up by the summer, taking the total involved to some 80,000. A list of agencies and announced candidates is set out in the table and work continues in many other areas of Government. By the end of 1991 we expect that "next steps" will have been applied to at least half the civil service.

    The establishment of agencies is only the first step. The aim of "next steps" is to deliver greater efficiency and better service to the public. Achieving one at the expense of the other is not good enough. Demanding performance targets, financial and non-financial, are being set, and will be refined and improved as experience is gained, and further freedoms and flexibilities and delegations are given.

    Results from the early agencies are promising. Each agency will publish annually a report and accounts which amongst other things will set out what is looked for and what is achieved. To help the House and the public see what is happening, we propose to publish annually, starting later this year, a general report on the initiative overall including summaries of developments and results in individual agencies.

    The "next steps" initiative although directed in the first place at activities within the civil service is of broad application and its benefits should be sought more widely within the public sector. Accordingly the Government

    387
    have decided that these disciplines should be applied to non-departmental public bodies which have executive functions, where this is appropriate and where this is likely to improve their performance. I am announcing more details about this separately.

    Overall, "next steps" is showing its worth in the delivery of improved performance and better service to the public. The Government will continue to press this important initiative forward with energy and urgency.

    Executive Agencies Established or Expected to be Established by Easter 1990

    Executive Agencies

    Date or expected date of establishment

    Staff numbers

    Building Research Establishment

    2 April 1990

    650

    Central Office of Information

    5 April 1990

    750

    Central Veterinary Laboratory

    2 April 1990

    550

    Civil Service College

    6 June 1989

    200

    Companies House

    3 October 1988

    1,150

    Department of the Registers of Scotland

    6 April 1990

    950

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    2 April 1990

    5,250

    Driving Standards Agency

    2 April 1990

    2,000

    Employment Service

    2 April 1990

    35,000

    Historic Royal Palaces

    1 October 1989

    350

    Her Majesty's Stationery Office

    14 December 1988

    3,250

    Hydrographic Office

    6 April 1990

    1900

    Information Technology Services Agency

    2 April 1990

    3,000

    Insolvency Service

    21 March 1990

    1,400

    Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

    2 April 1990

    850

    Laboratory of the Government Chemist

    30 October 1989

    300

    Meteorological Office

    2 April 1990

    2,450

    National Weights and Measures Laboratory

    18 April 1989

    50

    Natural Resources Institute

    2 April 1990

    450

    Occupational Health Service

    2 April 1990

    100

    Patent Office

    1 March 1990

    1,150

    QE11 Conference Centre

    6 July 1989

    50

    Radiocommunications Agency

    2 April 1990

    450

    Resettlement Agency

    24 May 1989

    550

    Royal Mint

    2 April 1990

    950

    Training and Employment Agency (NICS)

    2 April 1990

    1,600

    Vehicle Certification Agency

    2 April 1990

    50

    Vehicle Inspectorate

    1 August 1988

    1,600

    Veterinary Medicines Directorate

    2 April 1990

    50

    Warren Spring Laboratory

    20 April 1989

    300

    30 in number

    66,350

    1Defence Support Agency. Figure does not include service personnel.

    Note: Figures based on staff in post 1 October 1989.

    Announced candidates for Executive Agency status at Easter 1990

    These activities have been announced by Departments as under consideration for Agency status

    Candidate

    Staff numbers

    Cadw

    200

    Central Statistical Office

    1,000

    Civil Service Commission

    300

    Defence Accounts Organisation

    12,150

    Defence Research Agency

    12,000

    Forensic Science Service

    550

    Fuel Suppliers Branch

    50

    Historic Buildings and Monuments

    600

    Land Registry

    11,000

    Military Survey

    1850

    National Engineering Laboratory

    500

    National Physical Laboratory

    800

    Ordnance Survey

    2,600

    Passport Office

    1,100

    388

    Candidate

    Staff numbers

    Planning Inspectorate

    550

    Property Holdings

    1,600

    RAF Training

    12,500

    Royal Parks

    550

    Service Children's Schools

    11,300

    Social Security Benefits

    72,000

    Social Security Contributions

    7,000

    Training Agency

    23,500

    Rating Division (NICS)

    250

    Social Security Operations (NICS)

    4,250

    24 in number

    127,200

    1 Defence Support Agency. Figure does not include service personnel.

    2 Figures in Command 814: since revised downwards.

    In addition work continues in many other areas of Government, including Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, and other parts of the Ministry of Defence.

    Sir Hal Miller
    To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress he has made with the creation of executive agencies within his Department.

    Mr. Luce
    In addition to the civil service college, which became an agency in June 1989, I am happy to announce that I have today launched the civil service occupational health service (the OHS) as an executive agency.

    The occupational health service was set up in 1986 to implement the recommendations of a scrutiny by the Prime Minister's efficiency unit. Its job is to promote the health and safety of civil servants at work. Government Departments, like other employers, have to prevent or deal with the distinctive health problems which affect their staff by reason of their work or workplace, not only to meet their legal obligations but to reap the benefits of a fit, productive and well-motivated organisation. And large employers are increasingly finding it best to do so by means of their own dedicated health service.

    The occupational health service has a key role to play in supporting management in Government Departments and in executive agencies. It provides expert advice on the statutory responsibilities of employers and on all aspects of occupational health, from recruitment to retirement. And it offers a complete range of supporting services like medical examinations, training in first aid, in the handling of hazardous substances and in the implications of legal changes; and tailor-made information and advice for civil servants working abroad.

    This relatively new service has already risen to the challenge of change, and is admirably fitted to perform even better an executive agency. It carries out well-defined executive functions; it recovers its full costs from charges to customer departments, which may obtain services elsewhere where they see this as providing better value for money; and it is responsive to customer demand, designing new services as required to meet changing priorities on the job.

    The OHS has a framework document which is designed to enhance its status, to sharpen its objectives, to encourage its customer-orientation, and to give its staff the incentives and the tools to go from strength to strength in improving the quality and efficiency of the service they provide.

    The OHS framework document identifies two key indicators by which the performance of the organisation will be monitored. These are the cost per productive

    389
    professional day (that is the fully loaded cost of the time of its professional staff) and the unit cost of advising on cases referred to the OHS for advice on sickness absence and the health of potential recruits to the civil service. The OHS is also committed to devising an indicator by which the quality of its services can be monitored in future.

    Copies of the OHS framework document have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

    Sir Hall Miller
    To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what action the Government are taking to apply the "next steps" approach to non-departmental public bodies.

    Mr. Luce
    The Government have drawn up a programme of action for the selective application of the "next steps" approach to executive non-departmental public bodies. This will extend the benefits of "next steps" more widely within the public sector. It continues to be Government policy that new NDPBs will not be set up unless it can be demonstrated that creating a new public body is the most appropriate and cost-effective solution to the task in hand. When a new body is set up, it is important to ensure it starts off on the soundest possible managerial footing.

    Sponsoring Departments will in future prepare a management statement, broadly on the lines of a "next steps" framework document, for all new executive NDPBs. The overall aim will be to delegate responsibility to the maximum extent practicable to the body, within an agreed framework which unambiguously sets out the relationship between each body and its sponsoring Department. The approach is designed to improve managerial responsibility for performance and the delivery of results, to improve service to the public, and to enhance accountability.

    A similar approach will be applied selectively over a period to existing bodies. Departments and NDPBs have already put a great deal of effort into improving management arrangements. The existing system of comprehensively reviewing each NDPB at least every five years gives Departments the opportunity to consider which NDPBs will most benefit from the early preparation of a management statement, building on what is already in place, and taking account of the statute which sets the framework for each NDPB's relationship with its sponsoring Department. Details are set out in a note prepared by Cabinet Office (Office of the Minister for the Civil Service) and the Treasury. I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing in value terms for each year from 1970 to 1989 his estimate of gross and net output for manufacturing; and if he will add figures to show gross output after the elimination of transfers within the manufacturing sector.

    Mr. Norman Lamont
    The information on gross and net output for manufacturing industry is published annually at current prices in Business Monitor PA1002, report on the census of production, summary volume. Copies of this volume up to 1987, the latest available year, are available from the House of Commons Library.
    390
    Transfers of goods produced by a business to departments not covered by the census (including other businesses in the same enterprise group) are treated within output as sales, valued as if sold to an independent buyer.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Warren
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government have implemented regulations under all the opportunities available under the European Economic Community value added tax directive relating to not-for-profit organisations covered under article 13 of the directive relating to the reimbursement by Her Majesty's Government of value added tax paid by such organisations and similar relief on donations listed as sales for a nominal amount to such organisations.

    Mr. Ryder
    Article 13 of the EC sixth VAT directive includes various activities where services and goods supplied by charities or non-profit-making organisations shall be exempted from VAT.

    Under the normal EC VAT rules, when a business donates equipment it is required to account for VAT on the supply, but donors are not obliged to pass this VAT charge on to the recipient of the equipment.

    There is no provision in EC legislation for national Governments to reimburse VAT incurred by non-profit-making organisations on their exempt or non-business activities.

    Rateable Values (Fylde)
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which office of the rating and valuation service holds the records of the rateable values of the domestic properties within the Fylde constituency.

    Mr. Lilley
    The statutory valuation list was prepared for Fylde borough council by the valuation officer, Lancaster. A copy of this list is held for public inspection in the office of Fylde borough council.

    Treasury Bills
    Sir Richard Body
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total value of the Treasury bills issued for each of the last 12 months.

    Mr. Ryder
    The results of the weekly Treasury bill tender are contained in table 3.8 of "Financial Statistics." Table 3.7 shows the distribution of holdings of Treasury bills.

    Royal Mint
    Mr. Hanley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in developing the Royal Mint as an executive agency.

    Mr. Ryder
    I am pleased to announce that the Royal Mint will today become an executive agency under the "next steps" initiative. The present Deputy Master of the Mint, Mr. A. D. Garrett will be chief executive of the agency.

    The mint has been a Government trading fund since 1975 and since that time has consistently achieved a high level of profitability. Its contribution to exports has been recognised by the Queen's Award on four occasions.

    As an executive agency the mint will have greater management freedom to develop its thriving business on

    391
    sound commercial lines in accordance with best private sector practice, and to maximise the efficiency, effectiveness and profitability of its operations. This is reflected in the framework document governing the operation of the agency, copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House today.

    A Treasury minute setting the new financial target for the mint of an average 12½ per cent. current cost return on assets for the period 1990–91 to 1992–93 was laid on 27 March 1990 in accordance with section 4(1)(b) of the Government Trading Fund Act 1973.

    I wish the deputy master and chief executive and his staff every success in achieving their objectives.

    Employee Share Ownership
    Mr. Hanley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to evaluate the tax reliefs introduced in recent years to encourage employee share ownership.

    Mr. Lilley
    Information from the returns made by employers shows that impressive progress in developing employee share ownership has already been made with the help of the existing tax incentives, and the Government hope to see this progress maintained. To supplement the information already available, I have recently authorised the Inland Revenue to commission research into employers' attitudes to employee share ownership including, in particular, the factors which influence them in the introduction and operation of employee share schemes. The terms of reference for the study are being placed in the House Library.

    European Community
    Mr. Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the information which Her Majesty's Government are required to provide to the European Economic Community Commission in terms of the European documents considered along with his Budget statement; if this information is at present collected by Her Majesty's Government; and what will be the cost in future years of the collection and supply of the information so required.

    Mr. Ryder
    The European Commission's annual economic report is based on its own information and analysis. Member states may offer comments before the report is approved by ECOFIN. The cost to the United Kingdom of so doing is not significant.

    Budget Yields
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish information in respect of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Wales, (c) England, (d) Scotland and (e) Northern Ireland for the Budget years 1988–89 and 1989–90 on (i) total yield of national insurance, (ii) total yield of corporation tax, (iii) total net yield of value added tax, (iv) vehicle excise duty, (v) petrol and derv duty, (vi) tobacco duty and (vii) alcohol duty.

    Mr. Lilley
    [holding answer 29 March 1990]: Figures for the United Kingdom as a whole are as follows:
    392

    £ billion

    1988–89

    11989–90

    Social security contributions (including national insurance)

    33·00

    33·1

    Corporation tax

    18·5

    21·4

    Value added tax

    27·3

    29·7

    Vehicle excise duty

    2·8

    2·9

    Petrol and derv duty

    8·5

    8·6

    Tobacco duty

    5·0

    5·0

    Alcohol duty

    4·5

    4·6

    1Estimate

    Data for central Government revenue are not generally broken down by territories. Of those categories requested, only for social security contributions is information available. Latest estimates suggest that these are made up as follows:

    United Kingdom security contributions, percentage of total

    per cent.

    England

    85

    Scotland

    9

    Wales

    4

    Northern Ireland

    2

    Total

    100

    Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
    Mr. Clay
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing(a) the total cost of mortgage interest tax relief in 1990–91, (b) the average value of relief per mortgagor and (c) the numbers receiving mortgage relief, broken down in the income ranges: under £4,000, £4,000 to £5,000, £5,000 to £6,000, £6,000 to £7,000, £7,000 to £8,000, £8,000 to £9,000, £9,000 to £10,000, £10,000 to £12,000, £12,000 to £15,000, £15,000 to £20,000, £20,000 to £25,000, £25,000 to £30,000 and over £30,000.

    Mr. Lilley
    [holding answer 30 March 1990]: Estimates for 1990–91 are not yet available. Estimates for 1989–90 were given in my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 19 February, Official Report, column 519.

    Mr. Churchill
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of higher rate tax relief on mortgage interest in the year 1990–91; and what is(a) the likely number of beneficiaries and (b) the average size of the mortgage involved.

    Mr. Lilley
    [holding answer 30 March 1990]: Estimates for 1990–91 are not available. In 1989–90, the estimated cost of relief at excess over the basic rate of income tax is £430 million. About 700,000 mortgagors are beneficiaries and their average mortgage is estimated at £28,500. Estimates are provisional.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Art Treasures
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Prime Minister what specific measures have been taken by Her Majesty's Government, alone or with other European Community countries, in order to(a) identify and (b) protect from permanent removal from the United Kindom national artistic treasures after the single market comes into completion in 1992.

    The Prime Minister
    The Waverly system has worked well in enabling us to identify and protect national artistic
    393
    treasures without infringing the rights of owners and unnecessarily impeding the operation of the market. We are considering what measures might be needed to strengthen its operation in the changed conditions after 1992.

    Members of Parliament (Bribery)
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Prime Minister which action she is taking on the Salmon committee recommendation that Parliament should consider bringing corruption, bribery and attempted bribery of an hon. Member, acting in his parliamentary capacity, within the ambit of the criminal law.

    The Prime Minister
    The corruption, bribery and attempted bribery of Members of Parliament acting in their parliamentary capacities would be a contempt and would be a matter for the Committee of Privileges to deal with. We would consider bringing forward legislation to make the corruption or attempted corruption of hon. Members a criminal offence only if there was clear evidence that the present arrangements were ineffective and the House agreed.

    European Monetary System
    Mr. Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Prime Minister if she will seek to ensure that each Department affected publishes a statement on the implications for its activities of the joining of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

    The Prime Minister
    No. The Government have made it clear that sterling will join the exchange rate mechanism (ERM) when the conditions set out at Madrid are met.

    President Havel
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed during her meeting with President Havel of Czechoslovakia on 21 and 22 March.

    The Prime Minister
    I discussed with President Havel his ideas for the future shape of Europe and some of the security problems which arise from the new situation. I also announced the extension of the know-how fund to Czechoslovakia.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Appeals
    Mr. Kirkwood
    To ask the Attorney-General what is the average period between a conviction and the hearing of an appeal against that conviction; and if he will make a statement.

    The Attorney-General
    In England and Wales the average period between lodgment of a notice of appeal against a decision of the magistrates court and hearing of the appeal in the Crown court is 8·36 weeks.

    Of appeals to the Court of Appeal, criminal division, against convictions in the Crown court 32·3 per cent. are ready for hearing within six months and 84·3 per cent. are ready within 12 months. The time taken for an appeal to be heard is governed by the amount of preparatory work involved, and in trying to list cases with the minimum of
    394
    delay the registrar of criminal appeals must ensure that counsel and solicitors acting for each appellant have adequate time to prepare their cases. Where delays in listing appeals occur they tend to be caused by the court's obligation to balance the conflicting needs of applicants who all wish their appeals heard as soon as possible. Those with leave to appeal against conviction, or short sentences, are, wherever possible, given earlier consideration than those appealing against long sentences.

    Estate Agents
    Mr. Favell
    To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received on the proposals to reform the legal profession in so far as they affect estate agents.

    The Attorney-General
    Since the publication of the Courts and Legal Services Bill on 6 December 1989, the Lord Chancellor has received eight representations concerning estate agency. The representations have been concerned with the suitability of allowing estate agents to offer conveyancing services as well as providing financial services in the house purchase market.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what was discussed.

    The Attorney-General
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) earlier today.

    County Courts
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Attorney-General if there are any proposals to change the level of staffing in the county courts; and if he will make a statement.

    The Attorney-General
    The number of court staff will be increased by about 350 in the coming financial year, and subsequently by up to a further 100 during the transitional period while new initiatives are being introduced.

    At the same time the introduction of a computerised summons production centre and the curtailment of the county court banking function will release staff time savings equivalent to about 350 staff.

    Immigration Appeals
    Mr. Harry Barnes
    To ask the Attorney-General what is the average length of time taken by the independent appellate authority in dealing with an appeal against a decision of an entry clearance officer on an immigration matter.

    The Attorney-General
    The immigration appellate authorities (IAA) do not record information on the average time taken to deal with appeals. It is, however, possible to give an estimate of the average time taken by the IAA to deal with appeals at each stage of the proceedings, as follows:(a) from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal and the explanatory statement at the IAA's headquarters to the date of dispatch of the case papers to the parties' representatives in the United Kingdom: two to three months;
    (b) from the date on which both parties indicate readiness to proceed to a hearing to the date of the hearing: one and a half to two months;

    395
    (c) from the date of hearing to the date of dispatch of the adjudicator's determination to the parties' representatives in the United Kingdom: one month.

    Thus, the current estimate of the average time taken by the IAA to deal with a case is four and a half to six months, to which must be added the time taken by the parties' representatives in the United Kingdom to indicate readiness to proceed after receipt of the case papers from the IAA. This latter period can vary considerably but the current estimate is from two to six months.

    In addition, an appeal from a determination by an adjudicator to the immigration appeal tribunal is estimated to take four to six months.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Regional Functions
    Mr. Caborn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what functions his Department carries out at the regional level; where the regional offices are located in each of the regions; what staff are employed and at what grades; what proportion of his Department's budget is spent in each of the regions; and what geographical boundaries determine his Department's regions.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    The regional network of the Department of Trade and Industry comprises eight regional offices in England together with their sub-offices and satellites. Their main tasks are:(1) To promote a better understanding of Government policies in the regions, to gather intelligence about industry and commerce, and to represent regional interests to Government.
    (2) To promote and administer all parts of the Enterprise Initiative.
    (3) To co-operate with other Government Departments, particularly through the City Action Teams, and with regional development organisations, local authorities, chambers of commerce, local enterprise agencies and other regional and local bodies.

    Details of the geographical boundaries and location of

    Staff by grade (including casually employed staff) as at 1 February 1990

    DTI NE

    DTI NW

    DTI YH

    DTI EM

    DTI WM

    DTI East

    DTI SE

    DTI SW

    Total

    Grade 3

    2·0

    1·0

    1·0

    —

    1·0

    —

    —

    —

    5·0

    Grade 4

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Grade 5

    1·0

    2·0

    1·0

    1·0

    1·0

    1·0

    1·0

    1·0

    9·0

    Grade 6

    4·0

    4·0

    3·0

    3·0

    3·0

    2·0

    5·0

    3·0

    27·0

    Grade 7

    10·0

    10·0

    7·0

    4·0

    9·0

    3·0

    5·0

    4·0

    52·0

    SEO

    15·0

    14·0

    10·0

    5·0

    14·0

    —

    4·0

    1·0

    63·0

    SPTO/SSO

    2·0

    1·0

    1·0

    2·0

    1·0

    —

    —

    2·0

    9·0

    HEO

    29·0

    33·0

    21·0

    18·0

    24·0

    7·0

    19·0

    12·0

    163·0

    HPTO/HSO

    1·0

    1·0

    3·0

    1·0

    2·0

    —

    1·0

    —

    9·0

    I0

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1·0

    —

    1·0

    E0

    51·0

    39·0

    26·0

    15·0

    31·0

    10·0

    32·0

    19·0

    223·0

    AO

    32·5

    38·5

    21·0

    17·5

    35·0

    15·0

    43·5

    25·5

    228·5

    AA

    25·5

    28·0

    19·0

    9·0

    27·5

    3·0

    13·0

    5·5

    130·5

    TM/Typist

    8·0

    8·0

    5·0

    5·0

    12·5

    3·0

    —

    7·5

    49·0

    PS/SPS

    6·0

    7·0

    4·0

    3·0

    5·0

    2·0

    5·0

    2·0

    34·0

    Support staff

    3·0

    —

    6·0

    5·0

    6·0

    —

    0·5

    1·0

    21·5

    Total

    190·0

    186·5

    128·0

    88·5

    172·0

    46·0

    130·0

    83·5

    1,024·5

    In addition to its regional office structure, a number of other operations of the Department are sited, in whole or in part, in the regions. These include the inner-city task forces; provincial offices of the insolvency service; offices of the radio investigations service and the Department's financial investigations division; and a number of the
    396
    the regional offices are contained in the DTI guide for business, a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

    While some DTI programmes have a strong regional emphasis, the vast majority are delivered nationally and it is not therefore possible to provide precise figures for expenditure by region for all schemes. For areas where programme spend can be attributed to individual offices the proportional spends are as follows:

    Per cent. of spend under The Industrial Development Act 1982

    Per cent. of spend under The Consultancy Initiatives

    DTI NE

    39·6

    4·8

    DTI NW

    25·6

    17·4

    DTI YH

    16·0

    11·2

    DTI EM

    3·2

    6·6

    DTI WM

    9·2

    12·2

    DTI SE

    2·1

    19·3

    DTI SW

    4·2

    7·0

    DTI East

    —

    5·4

    Scotland and Wales

    —

    16·6

    The budget for administrative expenditure in 1989–90 by the regional offices is £18·8 million, some 6 per cent. of the total administrative expenditure of the Department. The expenditure by region is as follows:

    £ million

    DTI EM

    1·6

    DTI NE

    3·4

    DTI WM

    3·0

    DTI SE

    2·7

    DTI YH

    2·3

    DTI NW

    3·7

    DTI East

    0·5

    DTI SW

    1·5

    A breakdown of staff by grade in each of the regional offices is as follows:

    Department's research establishments. Information broken down by region on the administrative costs of these operations is not readily available.

    The staff that they employ, however, represent some 14 per cent. of total DTI staffing (excluding Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and are located as follows:

    397

    Staff in post as at 1 January 1990

    Number

    North East

    58

    North West

    184

    Yorks and Humberside

    100·5

    East Midlands

    87

    West Midlands

    276

    South West

    125·5

    South East (excluding London)

    547

    Total

    1,378

    Government Expenditure
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide the information contained in tables 4.11, 4.12 and 4.14 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" for Wales only.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    I am afraid that this information is not available.

    Buy British Campaign
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in favour of a Buy British campaign; and what response he has made.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    The Secretary of State has received a number of representations on this topic. Our response recognises the advantages of purchasing United Kingdom goods and services where they are competitive in design, quality and price.

    Telecommunications
    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will set out the terms of reference of the telecommunications review due to start later in the current year;

    (2) what plans he has to extend the present duopoly in the provision of basic telephone services.

    Mr. Forth
    The Government will review the present duopoly in the provision of telecommunications over fixed links starting in November of this year. The terms of reference of the review have yet to be decided. I do not at present have any plans to extend the current duopoly.

    Computer Programs (Copyright)
    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to ensure that the proposals for harmonised copyright protection for computer programs in the European Community that result from the Commission's 1989 draft directive do not permit(a) unfair competition and (b) trade secrets embodied in proprietary software to be published.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    We—and, I believe, all other member states—are concerned to ensure that competition in the supply of computer software is fair. There is no provision in the draft directive requiring the publication of trade secrets embodied in such software.

    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to ensure that the proposals for harmonised copyright protection for 398
    computer programs in the European Community do not prevent Britain from restraining unauthorised imports of copies of computer programs marketed outside the EEC.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    There are no provisions in the draft directive which would prevent the owners of the United Kingdom copyright in a computer program from taking action to restrain the importation of infringing copies of that program from outside the EEC.

    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps are being taken to ensure that the proposals for harmonised copyright protection for computer programs in the European Community that result from the Commission's 1989 draft directive protect(a) members of the British software industry against uncontrolled access by competitors to the details and workings of their proprietary software and (b) the investment in research and development incurred by the British software industry in creating proprietary software;

    (2) what steps are being taken to ensure that the proposals for harmonised copyright protection for computer programs in the European Community resulting from the Commission's 1989 draft directive provide sufficient protection to encourage long-term research and development;

    (3) what steps are being taken to ensure that the proposals for harmonised copyright protection for computer programs in the European Community that result from the Commission's 1989 draft directive do not undermine the protection presently afforded the British software industry by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and other relevant legislation;

    (4) what steps are being taken to ensure that the proposals for harmonised copyright protection for computer programs in the European Community resulting from the Commission's 1989 draft directive do not discourage innovation;

    (5) what steps are being taken to ensure that the proposals for harmonised copyright protection for computer programs in the European Community that result from the Commission's 1989 draft directive do not by permitting limited access for specified reasons allow details and workings of proprietary software to become available to commercial competitors.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    The draft directive does not provide for uncontrolled access to the details and workings of proprietary software, although the question of whether access should be allowed in certain limited circumstances is receiving further consideration. Investment by the British software industry will continue to be safeguarded in the United Kingdom by the rights accorded under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which is not undermined by the draft directive. The draft directive would, however, improve the general level of protection of computer programs in the Community and should therefore further encourage investment, innovation and long-term research and development in this field.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Butler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the total of European regional development fund moneys given to the borough of St. Helens in each of the last five years.
    399
    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    The totals of commitments from the European regional development fund in respect of projects in St. Helens, Merseyside in the last five years have been as follows:

    Industrial

    Infrastructure

    Total

    £

    £

    £

    1985

    55,783

    142,500

    198,283

    1986

    144,002

    29,500

    173,502

    1987

    45,057

    185,400

    230,457

    1988

    12,057

    —

    12,057

    1989

    50,958

    —

    50,958

    The absence of commitments to infrastructure projects in 1989 is due to the European Commission's delay in approving the Mersey basin programme which includes St. Helens. With the recent approval of this programme commitments will resume.

    Televisions
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many British-made televisions were exported to European Economic Community countries, and how many were sold on the British market, in the latest available 12 months.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    A total of 1·2 million British-made television sets were exported to European Economic Community countries and 1·82 million British-made sets were sold on the British market in 1989.

    Company Accounts
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy as a condition of recognition to require the accountancy bodies seeking supervisory recognition under the Companies Act 1989 to make the minutes of their council meetings available(a) to their members and (b) to any member of the public on payment of a small fee.

    Mr. Redwood
    No. It is for a supervisory body itself to decide what arrangements are appropriate for informing its members and the public about its proceedings.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department has any plans to legislate to strengthen controls over auditors establishing whether or not a business is a going concern.

    Mr. Redwood
    No. I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave to his questions on 5 March at column 415 and 27 March at column 125.

    European Postal Monopoly
    Mr. Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals have emerged from the European Economic Community Commission on the establishment of a European postal monopoly; what assessment has been made of the implications for the United Kingdom and for private delivery services; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Forth
    Discussions on postal policy in Europe are taking place in Brussels between member states and the European Commission but no proposals have yet been made by the Commission and it is too early to speculate 400
    what the implications might be for the United Kingdom and for private delivery services. I understand that the Commission intends to publish a Green Paper in June.

    Radiocommunications Division
    Mr. Bowis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards establishing his Department's radiocommunications division as an executive agency.

    Mr. Ridley
    I am establishing the radiocommunications executive agency today. It is the seventh executive agency to be established within DTI.

    Operating as an agency will give the agency further incentive in its efforts to provide an effective, quality service to radio users throughout the country. To that end I have set the radiocommunications agency the following efficiency and quality of service targets for 1990–91:
    (a) to achieve an efficiency increase of 3 per cent. in its overall operations;
    (b) to maintain and improve existing levels of quality of service in its licensing and enforcement activities through a comprehensive set of quality of service targets as follows:
    (i) Licensing
    Aeronautical—90 per cent. of new applications to be processed and despatched within one working day;
    Aircraft—90 per cent. of new applications to be processed and despatched within two working days;
    Ships radio—80 per cent. of licences to be issued within one month;
    Maritime business radio—90 per cent. of cases to be actioned within three months;
    Private mobile radio
    Average time for processing applications:
    New applications—within 15 working days;
    Amendments—within 30 working days;
    On-site paging—90 per cent. of new applications and amendments to be processed and, where appropriate, despatched within three working days.
    In each case the target is for action within the number of days specified, following receipt by the agency;
    (ii) Enforcement:
    95 per cent. of safety of life services complaints to be handled within 24 hours;
    95 per cent. of business complaints to be handled within five working days;
    95 per cent. of domestic complaints to be handled within one month.
    I propose in due course to set the radiocommunications agency similarly challenging targets for the improvement of efficiency in later years.

    Textile and Clothing Industry
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if any studies have been conducted on the likely impact of the changes in central and eastern Europe on the textile and clothing industry in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    [holding answer 28 March 1990]: I am not aware of any such study.

    Consultancies
    Mr. Tim Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consulting firm and the
    401
    subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

    Mr. Forth
    [holding answer 28 March 1990]: My Department's expenditure on consultants engaged in the financial year 1989–90 is estimated to be £6,979,000 of which £3,967,000 is for computer consultancy contracts excluding hardware and software purchases. The allocation for 1990–91 will be set shortly in the light of the Department's annual activity and resource management review. Expenditure on management consultants is not recorded separately.

    The following is the list of management or computer consultancy contracts awarded for the financial year 1989–90:

    Firm and subject of assignment
    National Computing Centre—Focus Software Quality Paper Update
    Trichem Consultants Limited—Petrochemical Industry Study
    Trichem Consultants Limited—Petrochemical Industry Study
    Trichem Consultants Limited—Petrochemical Industry Study
    Ernst and Whinney—Inward Investment Study
    SEMA Group (UK) Limited—IT Security Standards
    Benchmark—Engineering Computer Survey
    Martec Associates—Diesel Generating Sets—Market Study
    Policy Studies Institute—Evaluation of OSTT and AIT Ref (1725)
    March—Maintenance Initiative Report
    Coopers and Lybrand—Barriers To Takeover
    Victor Hausner & Associates—Task Forces Advice and Support On Policy Guidance
    Taylor Hitec—Famos Management
    W. S. Atkins—IMM Market Study
    SEMA—Slumen MR OSI Network Management
    J. Westgate (Consultants) Limited—OSI Network Study
    EOSYS Limited—OSI Implementor Groups
    National Economic Research Association (NERA)— Copyright Protection Study
    T. William 0lle Associates—Open Distributed Processing Reference Model
    T. William 0lle Associates—Data Management Reference Model
    SEMA Group Limited—OSI Upper Layer Architecture
    Data Dictionary Systems Limited—Study On International Standards
    Lighting Industry Federation—Certification of Lighting Equipment
    Secure Information Systems Limited—Cleft Test Evaluation
    Standardcorp—Nursery Goods European Standards
    International Project Councellors Limited—Feasibility Study—Open Cast Mine
    SEMA Group Limited—OSI Upper Layer Architecture
    Coopers & Lybrand—Scrutiny Of Demand And Funding For Departmental Central Services
    Malcolm Associates—Safety Critical Systems
    Business in the Community (BIC)—Enterprise and education Sectoral Initiative
    Coopers and Lybrand—Environmental/safety controls on chlorinated substances
    Intermatrix—Study on the Japanese market for speciality chemicals: Opportunity Japan campaign stage II
    Metra Martech Limited—Expo 92—Spaniards' attitudes towards Britain survey
    P-Four Consultancy Limited—Open systems technology transfer module (OSTT)
    Segal Quince Wicksteed Limited—Consultancy initiatives evaluation next phase 1989/90
    Dodwell Marketing Consultants—Study on the Japanese market for speciality food and drink
    PA Consulting Group—Microengineering study
    British Mining Consultants Limited—Mining sector study in Latin and South America
    402
    A. T. Kearney Limited—Computer integrated manufacturing market study
    Artificial Intelligence Limited—Study of the adoption of parallel computing architectures
    General Technology Systems—HDTV technology market study
    General Technology Systems—Television studio equipment study
    QU O-Tec Limited—Materials matter technology transfer programme
    Ernst and Whinney—USSR consultancy opportunities study
    Mott Macdonald International—Oman water master plan study
    Peat Marwick McLintock—IT systems classification study
    Peat Marwick McLintock—Public purchasing in the excluded sectors
    HP-ICM—Management best practice/Action briefings
    Furniture Industry Research Association—Furniture industry study
    AMTRI—Study into human factor engineering in manufacturing
    Coal Research Establishment—China coal utilisation study
    Aspinwall and Co. Limited—Manufacturing sector environmental study
    Logica Consultancy Limited—United Kingdom input to the ISO lower layer security model
    Technopolis Limited—Science policy research unit electronic equipment sources study
    National Council for Educational Technology (NCET)—CD Rom in schools
    Coopers and Lybrand Associates Limited—Inward investment review
    Ernst and Young—DTI enterprise initiative scheme contractors review
    Scoll—DTI IT Security policy development
    Coopers and Lybrand—CFC market study
    Sambrook Research International—Evaluation of demonstration firms scheme
    March Consulting Group—Batteries and accumulators community directive study
    Coopers and Lybrand—Computing services industry study
    National Computing Centre—Starts programme management
    Cox Computer Consultants—Mobile monitoring data processing programme
    Segal Quince Wicksteed Limited—Study (1) Survey on Otis and Techalert
    Segal Quince Wicksteed Limited—Study (2) survey on Otis and Techalert
    Segal Quince Wicksteed Limited—Regional enterprise grants evaulation
    Roskill Information Services Limited—Chrome market assessment
    Satellite International Limited—RAL polar platforms instruments studies
    British Fashion Council—Fashion designer industry market study
    SEMA Group—Performance testing of manufacturing networks
    Benchmark Research—The 1989 Eureka materials survey
    Levelphase Limited—Intelligent documentation advisory system
    Headway Systems—Castelmaine design support
    BT Research Labs—Ella behavioural synthesis
    March Consulting Group—Managing maintenance in manufacturing programme
    Power Management Associates—Research in hydraulic equipment
    National Computing Centre—IT security awareness programme for business
    Trichem consultants—Link asymetric synthesis programme

    Optimat Limited—Materials technology audits
    P-E Inbucon—EMC technology transfer campaign
    Computer Services Association—CSA single European market study
    Intermatrix Group—Japanese market for aerospace products
    Peat Marwick McLintock—IT effectiveness report
    SPG Management Consultants Limited—Market study: Textile machinery
    Peat Marwick McLintock—Marketing testing and survey of

    403
    accounts branch services
    Touche Ross and Company—Assessment of consultancy initiatives in the industry
    Peat Marwick McLintock—Market assessment study on the recycling of tyres
    Segal Quince Wicksteed—Consultancy initiatives evaluation next phase—1989–90
    PA Consulting Group—Review of the information retrieval services (IRS)
    Welding Institute The—Market study: United Kingdom welding market
    PIRA—Study 6: Papermaking machinery
    PIRA—Study 4: Printing machinery
    Grant Thornton—Use of information systems in small/ medium enterprises
    Electrical Installation Equipment Manufacturing Association Limited (EIMA)—House service cuttout market study
    Corporate Intelligence Group Limited—Construction and earth moving equipment
    Coopers and Lybrand—Managing into the 90's programme: Review
    Cousins Stephens Associates—Small firms constraints survey
    Instruction Set—Consultancy to assess software for press office and IBB
    Cranfield Institute of Technology—Import substitution mechanical handling
    Federation of Materials Institutes—Requirements in structural materials technology
    Topexpress Limited—United Kingdom advancement of the security framework
    Douglas Westwood Associates—Compressors oil hydraulic and pneumatic control equipment
    Escovale Research—United Kingdom market for electric motors
    Corporate Development Consultants Limited—Industry profile of printed cartons in EC market study
    Instruction Set—Open systems standards market study
    Aegis Systems Limited—Very small aperture terminals (VSAT) study
    RAPRA Technology Limited—Rubber and plastics working machinery study
    Leicester Expertise Limited—Leather plan and machinery market study
    Price Waterhouse—English unit consultancy
    PA Cambridge Economic Consultants—Leisure engineering markets study
    ERA Technology Limited—Market study on cable
    PIRA—Printing, papermaking and packaging machinery
    P-E Inbucon—Skill shortage in chemical industry market assessment study
    Ernst and Young—IMM market with west midlands community assessment study
    Merz and McLellan—Fabricator industries study
    Merz and McLellan—Secondary battery industry market study: Import substitution
    Michael Shortland Associates—Implementation of IED strategy for human computer interaction
    General Technology Systems Limited—Britain's future competitiveness study
    A. T. Kearney Limited—Wooden and upholstered furniture market assessment study
    Quo-tec Limited—Computerised materials data market study
    Trichem consultants—Review of United Kingdom valve industry
    Communication Studies and Planning Limited—BNSC's press office distribution system
    Electronic Publishing Services Limited—European information products and services study
    PRS Consultancy Services Limited—Automotive components
    Salford Software Services—OSI user application study
    Benchmark Research Limited—MAS: CAD/CAE take-up constructional steel Fabrication sector
    British Ceramic Research Limited—Glass and ceramics machinery
    Quo-tec Limited—Materials matter case study
    General Technology Systems Limited—Materials matter case study
    Institute of Metals—Materials matter case study
    Andrew Irvine Associates—DTI Enterprise and Education
    404
    Initiative market study
    PA Cambridge Economic Consultants—Non-survey methods to evaluate regional policy
    Electrotech Research Limited—Jessi board support group
    B.F.P.M.S—Electronic publishing strategic market study
    Rail Technology Services—United Kingdom light rail transit vehicle market survey
    British Computer Society (SGES)—Best manufacturing intelligence award
    Levelphrase Limited—Evaluation and assessment measures for KBS
    Rapra Technology Limited—Recycling of polymers from scrap products
    WS Atkins—Environmental monitoring instrumentation market study
    Fibre Research Consultants Limited—Construction of straw paper pulp mill
    PDA International—Design and operation of an environmental labelling scheme
    March Consulting Group—Cadmium community directive market assessment study
    G. P. Wild (International) Limited—DTI photographic unit's study
    BIS Mackintosh Limited—Capabilities of European GAAS electronic companies
    Metra Martech—Single market campaign: barriers to trade
    Institute of Electrical Engineers—Computer based systems safety practice
    Ferranti Computer Services—Quantifying software costs estimation
    John Westgate (Consultants) Limited—OSI products (2nd issue).
    Ferranti Computer Services—Formal verification support for Ella.
    Ferranti Computer Services—Sensing/Sensor fusion in complex man-machine systems
    PA Cambridge Economic Consultants—Evaluation of ICU's task force programme.

    Chatlines
    Mr. Churchill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will immediately take steps to ensure that in future 0898 telephone services shall be provided only to Government, commercial and private subscribers following an opt-in decision by the subscriber, communicated to the telephone company in writing.

    Mr. Forth
    [holding answer 30 March 1990]: This is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications, who has already taken firm action to control certain of these so-called premium rate services. He is keeping the matter under close review.

    British Aerospace
    Mr. Gordon Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) correspondence and (b) meetings his Department has had with the European Commission concerning subsidies to British Aerospace.

    Mr. Ridley
    [holding answer 27 March 1990]: There have been various meetings and exchanges of correspondence with the Commission concerning its inquiries into the terms of the sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace. The Commission has not yet concluded its inquiries. My Department is also in regular contact with the Commission about support to the partners in Airbus Industrie, which includes British Aerospace.

    Inspectors' Reports
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the investigations carried out by his inspectors in which they have alleged fraud or
    405
    other irregularities, along with a list of the auditing firms that failed to detect and report such frauds and irregularities.

    Mr. Redwood
    No. It does not follow that if inspectors report fraud or other irregularities there has necessarily been some failure on the part of the auditors.

    Trade Surplus
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with which Group of Seven countries the United Kingdom has a trade surplus.

    Mr. Redwood
    Information on United Kingdom imports and exports with the Group of Seven countries is published in the "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom",Business Monitor MM20, table lb.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Thurnham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the prospects for British exports to eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Redwood
    Prospects for British exports to eastern Europe vary from country to country and from industrial sector to industrial sector. Valuable opportunities for trade and investment exist in many sectors, including food processing and packaging, health care and medical equipment, computers, control equipment and office equipment. However, exports are limited by the lack of hard currency available and by competition from other major western suppliers. It is important that United Kingdom companies with the patience and persistence to tackle these markets should keep a high profile and be ready to seize new opportunities as they arise. This is particularly true at present in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and the German Democratic Republic, as they leave the command economy behind them. United Kingdom companies should also take into consideration the various aid and multilateral investment funds available for economic reconstruction.

    Single European Market
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has available concerning the potential trade diversion from developing countries to members of the European Community when the single European market is established in(a) primary food products, (b) metal products, (c) petrochemicals and fertilisers and (d)0 manufactured food.

    Mr. Redwood
    [holding answer 27 March 1990]: Completion of the single market will remove the remaining barriers to trade between the member states. This will also make it easier for overseas trading partners to do business throughout the Community. At the same time the Community is negotiating vigorously in the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations for the further liberalisation of international trade.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has made of the consequences of the single European market on investment in developing countries.

    Mr. Redwood
    [holding answer 27 March 1990]: Commercial investment decisions are determined by the
    406
    laws in force in the countries concerned. Completion of the single market, including removal of controls on capital movements by member states, should have a beneficial effect from which all the Community's trading partners can benefit.

    Ivory
    Mr. Tony Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much(a) raw and (b) worked ivory has been imported into the United Kingdom since 1988.

    Mr. Redwood
    [holding answer 29 March 1990]: For 1988 and 1989 combined, imports into the United Kingdom were (a) £678,000 for raw ivory (including powder and waste) and (b) £271,000 for worked ivory and articles of ivory. There were no imports of raw ivory in the last six months of 1989. No figures for early 1990 are yet available.

  ENERGY

    Offshore Oil Platforms
    Mr. Doran
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) in respect of the Argyll production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (2) in respect of the Forties production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (3) in respect of the Tartan production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the

    407
    installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (4) in respect of the Thistle production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (5) in respect of the Balmoral production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (6) in respect of the Beatrice production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (7) in respect of the Brent field production platforms, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what were the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was
    408
    the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (8) in respect of the Claymore production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what were the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (9) in respect of the Beryl A production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (10) in respect of the Beryl B production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (11) in respect of the Central Brae production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the

    409
    dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

    (12) in respect of the South Brae production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation.

    Mr. Peter Morrison
    The Offshore Installations (Construction and Survey) Regulations (S.I. 1974 No. 289) provide, inter alia, for the appointment by the Secretary of State of persons or bodies to certify offshore installations as fit for purpose and to carry out periodic surveys. On receipt of an application for a certificate of fitness or a renewal thereof the certifying authorities carry out, or ensure that there is carried out, an independent assessment of the design and method of construction of the installation and the provisions of its operation manual, and carry out a major survey of the installation. Thereafter there are regular annual surveys, which can be supplemented as necessary, for example where an installation has been damaged, shows signs of deterioration or its equipment has been modified.

    All offshore installations are subject to this regime, and it is an offence to operate an installation without a certificate of fitness. In addition, the marine directorate of the Department of Transport conducts biennial surveys of life-saving appliances and fire-fighting equipment and plans, as provided under the Offshore Installations (Life-Saving Appliances) Regulations (S.I. 1977 No. 486) and the Offshore Installations (Fire-fighting Equipment) Regulations (S.I. 1978 No. 611).

    My Department's safety directorate conducts inspections of offshore installations, during which it may look at any aspects of the installation and the working environment. The frequency with which installations are inspected varies according to the installation; an inspection rating system takes account of the nature of operations on the installation, the number of persons on board, an assessment of the effectiveness of management control, the lapse of time since the last inspection and other factors.
    410
    In line with these criteria, the most recent inspection of the Deepsea Pioneer (the Argyll floating production facility) took place in October 1989, of Forties FA in June 1989, of Forties FB in October 1989, of Forties FC in February 1989, of Forties FD and South East Forties in January 1990, of Tartan in September 1989, of Thistle in October 1989, of Balmoral in January 1990, of Beatrice A, B and C in May 1989, of Claymore in February 1990, of Brent A in January 1990, of Brent B in September 1989, of Brent C in December 1989, of Brent D in April 1989, of Beryl A in October 1989, of Beryl B in August 1989, and of Brae A in December 1989. Central Brae is a subsea drilling and production template to Brae A.

    In common with other regulatory agencies, it is not the Department's practice to publish inspection reports. Operators are informed of any defects discovered and remedial action required at the time, and this is subsequently confirmed in writing.

    The questions of regulations, guidance notes and exemptions in force were covered in my reply to the hon. Member of 30 March.

    The dates on which the platforms in question were installed are as follows:

    Platform

    Installation date

    Argyll

    December 1984

    Balmoral

    June 1986

    Beatrice A

    September 1979 and June 1980

    Beatrice B

    June 1983

    Beatrice C

    September 1984

    Beryl A

    July 1975

    Beryl B

    May 1983

    Brae A

    April 1982

    Brae B

    June 1987

    Brent A

    May 1976

    Brent B

    August 1975

    Brent C

    June 1978

    Brent D

    July 1976

    Claymore

    July 1976

    Forties FA

    June 1974

    Forties FB

    June 1975

    Forties FC

    August 1974

    Forties FD

    June 1975

    S.E. Forties

    July 1986

    Tartan

    June 1979

    Thistle

    August 1976

    Source: Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom, Department of Energy 1989.

    There have been four fatalities on these platforms during the last five years: on Brent C in March 1987, on Claymore A in May 1987, on Forties FB in October 1987 and on Brent D in November 1988. My Department investigates all fatal accidents.

    Over the same period, there have been seven convictions for breaches of United Kingdom safety legislation on these platforms following investigations by my inspectors. The details are as follows:

    Company

    Installation

    Date of conviction

    Penalty £

    Rigblast Offshore Ltd.

    Beryl B

    12 February 1985

    1,000

    Mobil North Sea Ltd.

    Beryl A

    17 January 1989

    10,000

    BP Development Ltd.

    Forties FD

    5 February 1985

    15,000

    Bawden International Ltd.

    Forties FB

    10 June 1985

    1,750

    Shell UK Ltd.

    Brent C

    28 August 1985

    350

    Jack Tighe (Offshore) Ltd.

    Brent C

    25 September 1985

    900

    Shell UK Ltd.

    Brent D

    19 October 1989

    5,000

    411
    My safety directorate does not make estimates of the life of an installation; this is a matter for the operators and the certifying authorities. However, all offshore installations have to be registered in line with the provisions of the Offshore Installations (Registration) Regulations (S.I. 1972 No. 702). This provides for registration to expire at the end of 25 years in the case of a fixed installation or 10 years in the case of a mobile installation, although applications for re-registration can be made.

    Mersey Barrage
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the bid by the Mersey Barrage Company to construct a barrage on the River Mersey.

    Mr. Peter Morrison
    The current phase of work on the proposed Mersey tidal barrage is still under way. Various proposals for the way forward have been submitted by the Mersey Barrage Company, and these are being considered by the Department.

    Nuclear Power
    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the share of the electricity generation industry of England and Wales that would be taken by the nuclear sector in the absence of any nuclear levy or nuclear subsidy.

    Mr. Baldry
    The non-fossil fuel obligation together with the fossil fuel levy will ensure that we continue to enjoy the strategic and environmental benefits of around 8GW of nuclear power.

    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish his correspondence with the Commissioners of the European Community regarding the nuclear levy and the nuclear subsidy.

    Mr. Wakeham
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on Monday 26 March at column 5.

    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish his correspondence with the directors designate of Nuclear Electric plc, regarding the directors' obligations to cease trading when their company is technically insolvent.

    Mr. Baldry
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on 27 March at column 122, and to the departmental minute that he laid before the House on 6 March. I have arranged for a copy of the letter of comfort to be placed in the Library of this House.

    Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
    Mr. Speller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will extend the period for contracts under the non-fossil fuel obligation for renewable energies to 15 years.

    Mr. Baldry
    The first order setting the level of the non-fossil fuel obligation in respect of renewables-sourced electricity generating capacity will cover the period from 1990 until 1998, and this is the period for which the fossil fuel levy will initially run. However, the arrangements that they make in order to meet their respective obligations are a matter for the public electricity suppliers.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Development Assistance
    Mr. Bradley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to announce the figures for the percentage of gross national product spent on official development assistance in 1989.

    Mrs. Chalker
    I expect to be able to provide this information in June.

    Sir David Steel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards attaining the 0·7 per cent. of gross national product level of aid/development spending.

    Mrs. Chalker
    In 1988 United Kingdom official development assistance as a percentage of gross national product was 0·32 per cent. The Government have accepted the United Nations target for official development assistance of 0·7 per cent. of GNP, but, like previous Administrations and many other donors, have not set a timetable for achieving it. Progess must depend on economic circumstances and other claims on resources.

    South Africa
    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by the Overseas Development Administration in the past year on aid for black people in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Chalker
    Over the past year we have spent about £9 million on aid for black South Africans, including our share of European Community aid.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Harry Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to re-establish the British Council in Cambodia.

    Mrs. Chalker
    I understand that the British Council has no plans to return to Cambodia at present.

    Palestine
    Mr. Livsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Israeli Government about aid to Palestine.

    Mrs. Chalker
    It has not been Her Majesty's Government's practice to consult the Israeli Government about our bilateral assistance to the occupied territories.

    Developing Nations (Aid)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take steps to increase the expenditure on aid to developing nations.

    Mrs. Chalker
    Expenditure on aid is increasing. The Government's Autumn Statement published on 15 November 1989 records that the aid programme is planned to rise from £1,500 million in 1989–90 to £1,587 million in
    413
    1990–91, £1,680 million in 1991–92 and £1,750 million in 1992–93. This represents a cash increase of 16 per cent. over the next three years.

    Natural Resources Institute
    Mr. Mans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been achieved through the work of the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute.

    Mrs. Chalker
    I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the Natural Resources Institute's role in the aid programme. It possesses a wealth of scientific expertise, developed over almost 100 years; and has done celebrated work across the developing world in land resource assessment, insect pest management, and food science and crop utilisation.

    Mr. Gerald Bowden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with plans for the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute to become an executive agency.

    Mrs. Chalker
    As foreshadowed in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 December 1989, at column 121, the institute has been established as an executive agency under the Government's "next steps" initiative with effect from 1 April. The institute's aims, objectives and operating principles as an agency are set out in a framework document, copies of which have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. In accordance with "next steps" principles, the institute will be free to propose further adaptation if changing circumstances make this appropriate.

    The institute's performance will be judged principally in terms of its ability to satisfy customers while covering its full economic costs. I have set NRI the target of improving its efficiency, as measured by unit costs, by 5·5 per cent. in the three years 1990–91 to 1992–93. Over the same period the institute plans to increase the volume of business it undertakes.

    The institute's name will he the Natural Resources Institute or NRI.

    Ethiopia
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about current aid to Ethiopia.

    Mr. Knapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the current arrangements for delivering relief supplies to northern Ethiopia.

    Mrs. Chalker
    I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 26 March at column 18.

    ODA Training (Women)
    Ms. Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to increase the percentage of women taking part in Overseas Development Administration-financed training schemes.
    414
    Mrs. Chalker
    Our comprehensive women in development (WID) strategy includes dialogue at all levels with aid-recipient Governments on opportunities for women as well as requests that they nominate more women for ODA training awards. ODA and British Council officials are seeking more nominations for women on all types of courses. We are exploring opportunities for more in-country courses, where representation of women is often higher than for courses in Britain, and we have sought to remove obstacles which are particularly daunting for women in attending United Kingdom courses. But all our efforts will be ineffective if developing country Governments are not willing to nominate more women for training awards.

    UN Development Fund for Women
    Ms. Primarolo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimates are for the United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations development fund for women in 1990.

    Mrs. Chalker
    Subject to parliamentary approval, £100,000.

    Brazil (Forestry Projects)
    Sir Fergus Montgomery
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many forestry projects have been approved under the memorandum of understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the Brazilian Government.

    Mr. Patrick Thompson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what forestry projects have been agreed with the Brazilian authorities for financing from the overseas aid programme.

    Mrs. Chalker
    One forestry project, on climate research, has been agreed with the Brazilian authorities. Details of this were given in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 1 March, column 283. We have also recently told the Brazilian authorities that we are ready to provide finance to an ITTO-sponsored forest management project in the Tapajos reserve, the detailed project agreement for which is now under discussion between Brazil and the ITTO.

    A further dozen proposals are under preparation or are being considered by the Brazilian Government. We hope to reach agreement shortly on some of these, to allow them to begin in the second quarter of this year.

    India
    Mr. Janner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current levels of British aid to India.

    Mrs. Chalker
    Last financial year (1988–89) British gross bilateral aid to India amounted to about £85 million, including £14 million from the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It continues to be the largest British bilateral aid programme.

    Aid and Trade Provisions
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken, or propose to take, in co-ordination with other countries, to reduce the amount of aid which is tied to trade provisions.

    Mrs. Chalker
    Her Majesty's Government played an active part in the discussions between member countries of the OECD in 1987 to produce a package of measures to improve discipline in the use of aid for projects tied to procurement in the donor country. Those measures are now under review within the OECD and the United Kingdom will again play its full part in achieving further multilaterally agreed measures to avoid the possible aid and trade distortion that can result from the use of such aid.

    Turkey (Refugees)
    Mr. Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom aid for Iranian and Iraqi refugees in Turkey.

    Mrs. Chalker
    Her Majesty's Government have provided two grants totalling £550,000 to assist Iraqi Kurds in Turkey and ethnic Turkish refugees from Bulgaria. Both the initial grant of £250,000 made in November 1988 and the £300,000 announced during my visit to Turkey in July 1989 were provided through the Turkish Red Crescent Society.

    UNHCR is currently negotiating with the Turkish Government a new programme of assistance for which I have agreed to provide £250,000.

    Developing Countries (Debt)
    Mr. John Garrett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to resolve the debt crisis of developing countries.

    Mrs. Chalker
    The Government will continue to provide financial assistance for indebted countries through IMF and World Bank, the rescheduling of official debt in the Paris Club and, where appropriate, bilateral aid. We will also continue to implement the special measures for the poorest debtors agreed at the 1988 Toronto economic summit. For middle-income debtors, specific support for commercial bank debt reduction will continue to be available through the IMF and World Bank. All this assistance is conditional on debtor countries pursuing economic reforms to lay the basis for sustained growth, as such reforms are essential for a lasting resolution of their debt problems.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with members of the European Commission and Ministers of member states concerning the writing-off of debt owed by developing countries to the European development fund.

    Mrs. Chalker
    Discussion has concentrated on whether to cancel outstanding repayments on transfers made under the Stabex system during the first Lomé convention. I expect a decision to be taken shortly.

    Nicaragua
    Mr. Boateng
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to restore bilateral aid to Nicaragua.

    Mrs. Chalker
    We have decided to start a modest bilateral technical co-operation programme to Nicaragua. We are in touch with our ambassador in Costa Rica, who has responsibility for our relations with Nicaragua, about how the programme could best be deployed.

    Mr. Murphy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made an assessment of Nicaragua's needs for international assistance since the election of Violetta Chamorro.

    Mrs. Chalker
    EC Ministers will be meeting their central American colleagues in Dublin on 9 and 10 April, and will be able to discuss the needs of the countries of that region, notably Nicaragua, then. Our main channel of international assistance in Nicaragua is through our contribution to EC aid to that country and, as indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 12 March, we will seek to ensure that EC aid to Nicaragua is maintained, and possibly increased, once Senora Chamorro's democratically elected Government take office.

    South-East Asia
    Mr. McFall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much he plans to provide in aid for the countries of south-east Asia in 1990–91.

    Mrs. Chalker
    I expect to provide approximately £15 million in 1990–91 to the countries of south-east Asia, most of it to Indonesia. Assistance is also likely to be provided under the aid and trade provision, but this cannot be quantified at present.

    Elephant Conservation Schemes
    Mr. Tony Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on elephant conservation schemes currently receiving British Government development aid.

    Mrs. Chalker
    Elephant conservation forms part of our wider assistance to African wildlife in general. We are supporting an increasing number of long-term wildlife and conservation projects on which we receive regular reports. However, many of these projects are at an early stage of implementation and it is too soon to assess their full impact. We remain willing to consider further requests for help. The conservation projects receiving our support are as follows:

    BRITISH SUPPORT FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN AFRICA

    Country and activity

    Botswana
    Provision for one United Kingdom expert as Deputy Director of Department of Wildlife and National Parks to assist the Government of Botswana to develop a Wildlife Department which can effectively manage the wildlife resources of the country. Likely costs approximately £92,000.

    Cameroon
    Jointly funding with the International Council for Bird Preservation a project to conserve forest resources in the Oku mountains. Approximate cost £80,000.
    417
    Kenya
    The provision of three United Kingdom experts (one wildlife adviser and two gamewardens) working in Kenya Wildlife Department. One gamewarden acts as co-ordinator of Kenya Rhino Rescue Project. Approximate annual cost £130,000.
    The provision of spare parts for and rehabilitation of 19 ex-Army Bedford trucks previously gifted by Ministry of Defence for use in anti-poaching efforts. The provision of seven new Landrovers for the Department of Wildlife and a review of radio communications needs. Total cost likely to be £250,000.

    Nigeria
    Assistance planned for the Foresty Sector could include the management and conservation of forest reserves in the Cross River and Bendel States encompassing the Oban Hills National Park and the Okomu forest sanctuary. Costings not yet available.

    Rwanda
    Landrover presented to Karisoke Research Centre, internationally renowned for its research on gorillas. Cost £15,000.

    Tanzania
    Joint funding of the Faith Foundation's Operation Rhino Rescue Project, a scheme designed to provide sanctuary for Tanzania's dwindling rhino population. Cost £50,000.
    Three Landrovers have been presented to the Ruaha Game Park for use in anti-poaching activities.
    UK consultants have undertaken a study to identify possible ways of helping with wildlife conservation. Their proposal to assist with planning and management at Ruaha National Park is under consideration. Estimated cost of the study is £10,000. Final cost of proposal to be determined.

    Zambia
    Funding of a Wildlife Management Consultancy to review the management of wildlife in Mpika District. No costs available as this forms part of a wider District Development support project.

    Zimbabwe
    Equipment and buildings to Chirundu Conservation Education Camp in the Zambezi Valley. Cost approximately £9,000.
    Co-financing Action Plan: an education programme aiming to promote conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. (The environmental health magazine produced as part of this project is also distributed throughout schools in Botswana and Zambia.) Cost £85,000.
    Communal Areas Wildlife Management Projects in Northern Zimbabwe, to help local people develop the ability to manage their wildlife resources sustainably. Cost appoximately £800,000.
    Wildlife Disease Epidemiology Project involving the provision of one UK expert and support equipment to carry out wildlife disease research and establish a database of the incidence and distribution of wildlife diseases. Estimated cost £340,000.

    Regionally
    £1 million block grant to World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund) to help conserve forest and other resources, important habitats for many endangered wildlife species. Projects are being funded in Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zambia.

    Caribbean
    Mr. Butler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of assistance given to islands in the Caribbean.
    418
    Mrs. Chalker
    We provide assistance both bilaterally and through multilateral institutions. Bilateral aid in 1988 (the latest year for which figures are yet available) was:

    Country programmes1

    £'000s Commonwealth Development Corporation

    Anguilla

    1,599

    —

    Antigua

    1,164

    —

    Barbados

    505

    —

    British Virgin Islands

    511

    2,200

    Cayman Islands

    —

    1,600

    Cuba

    2

    —

    Dominica

    1,973

    —

    Dominican Republic

    114

    —

    Grenada

    1,225

    —

    Haiti

    9

    —

    Jamaica

    5,367

    —

    Montserrat

    2,286

    —

    St. Kitts/Nevis

    2,095

    —

    St. Lucia

    808

    2,040

    St. Vincent

    869

    —

    Trinidad

    146

    —

    Turks and Caicos Islands

    4,233

    —

    1 There is also a regional technical co-operation allocation of about £2 million a year from which all the developing Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean region benefit, but it is not possible to attribute specific amounts to individual recipients.

    We also provide disaster relief when the need arises. In 1988, we committed £3 million to Jamaica, following Hurricane Gilbert, of which £348,000 was spent in 1988.

    It is also possible to calculate the share of multilateral aid attributable to the United Kingdom. In 1987 (the latest year for which the calculation can be made) the total was £15·540 million, of which £9·9 million was through the European Community.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any aid planned for eastern Europe will come from the overseas development budget.

    Mrs. Chalker
    The expenditure on aid for eastern Europe for which we have sought parliamentary approval in main estimates is additional to the official United Kingdom aid programme.

    Rain Forests
    Mr. Tom Clarke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentages of Overseas Development Administration funds intended to help protect tropical rain forests, including and excluding funding for the Oxford Forestry Institute, are to be channelled through the tropical forestry action plan.

    Mrs. Chalker
    The tropical forestry action plan is not a fund or organisation to which donors contribute funds. It is a mechanism under which recipient countries review their forestry sectors and donors can co-ordinate assistance. Of the 51 bilateral projects currently under consideration for funding from the further £100 million far tropical forestry announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last November, 19 are in the context of national forestry action plans. Some of the future projects which come forward for funding from the £100 million will
    419
    also be so. Most of the support we give the Oxford Forestry Institute is for research, outside the context of national forestry action plans.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Leaning Difficulties
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will ensure that CATE criteria include a provision for professional studies of the needs of pupils with specific learning difficulties in reading and writing.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    The Government's revised criteria for the accreditation of initial teacher training courses, which are set out in DES circular 24/89, include a requirement that the educational and professional studies of all students should develop in them the capacity to identify pupils with special educational needs or with learning difficulties and to understand the ways in which the potential of such pupils can be developed.

    Universities (London)
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the additional financial problems facing universities within the London area.

    Mr. Jackson
    This is a matter for the Universities Funding Council and for the universities concerned.

    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether in its bid to his Department as part of the 1990–91 Public Expenditure Survey Committee round, the Universities Funding Council supported the case for an additional £10 million per annum for universities in London facing exceptional costs because of their locations; and whether such a sum was included in the Universities Funding Council allocation for 1990–91 and identified as such.

    Mr. Jackson
    In line with long-established practice, advice from the Universities Funding Council on aggregate funding levels is confidential. It is entirely for the council to allocate its share of the 1989 public expenditure settlement between universities. Parliamentary sanction would be required under the Education Reform Act 1988 before my right hon. Friend could direct the council's action in relation to a particular university.

    In-service Training
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish for each local authority area the number of teachers in each of the last three years who have undertaken in-service training and other courses of professional development(a) during school hours and (b) after school, at weekends and during school holidays.

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    This information is not collected centrally. However, the Department does collect data on volumes of training for which release is or is not required, expressed as training days. I will reply as soon as possible.

    Education Expenditure
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total expenditure in education in the years 1978–79 and in 1988–89; and if he will give the relevant figures for higher education.

    Mr. Jackson
    Total DES expenditure on education and science (covering schools, further education, polytechnics and colleges of higher education in England, universities in Great Britain, and the science budget for the United Kingdom) in the years in question was as follows:

    £ million

    1978–79

    1988–89

    (outturn)

    (estimate)

    7,754

    18,412

    Within these totals, DES expenditure on higher education (covering grants to universities in Great Britain, funding for local authority higher education in England, expenditure on mandatory awards for undergraduates in England and Wales and postgraduate awards) in the years in question was as follows:

    £ million

    1978–79

    1988–89

    (outturn)

    (estimate)

    1,668

    3,891

    Teachers
    Mr. Straw
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will now publish the final report of the university of Bath study on teacher shortage initiatives referred to by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker),Official Report, 22 February 1989, column 634;

    (2) if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn, Official Report, 26 March, column 31, he will publish in full the evidence received and the results of his Department's survey of bursary holders referred to in his answer.

    Mr. MacGregor
    Yes. I shall place a copy of the report in the Library.

    Exchange Programmes
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the outcome of the first scientific support and exchange (stimulation) programme of the European Communities; and what progress has been made in developing a successor programme to SCIENCE within the European Communities and European Free Trade Association member states.

    Mr. Jackson
    Overall, 417 projects were financed under the first EC stimulation programme (1985–88) linking 1,257 laboratories all over Europe and involving 3,721 researchers (counted on a full-time equivalent basis). The successor to the first stimulation programme, SCIENCE (1988–92), is already operating successfully in the European Community. Agreements to include Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland in the SCIENCE programme are at present under discussion.

    Student Awards
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many undergraduate students in each local authority area received discretionary awards;

    England and Wales—1987–88

    Mandatory and HE discretionary award-holders1

    HE discretionary award-holders1

    Percentage in receipt of an HE discretionary award

    Local Education Authority

    Barking

    343

    36

    10

    Barnet

    4,023

    204

    5

    Bexley

    1,303

    50

    4

    Brent

    2,811

    185

    7

    Bromley

    3,115

    164

    5

    Croydon

    3,071

    128

    4

    Ealing

    2,713

    247

    9

    Enfield

    2,137

    19

    1

    Haringey

    1,923

    132

    7

    Harrow

    2,539

    106

    4

    Havering

    1,198

    67

    6

    Hillingdon

    1,590

    83

    5

    Hounslow

    1,625

    45

    3

    Kingston-Upon-Thames

    1,438

    83

    6

    Merton

    1,631

    63

    4

    Newham

    1,164

    83

    7

    Redbridge

    1,878

    75

    4

    Richmond-Upon-Thames

    2,082

    119

    6

    Sutton

    1,385

    27

    2

    Waltham Forest

    1,169

    84

    7

    ILEA

    22,908

    6,033

    26

    Birmingham

    7,327

    368

    5

    Coventry

    2,586

    143

    6

    Dudley

    1,941

    47

    2

    Sandwell

    1,368

    110

    8

    Solihull

    2,208

    94

    4

    Walsall

    1,825

    83

    5

    Wolverhampton

    1,941

    82

    4

    Knowsley

    800

    26

    3

    Liverpool

    3,580

    126

    4

    St. Helens

    1,444

    47

    3

    Sefton

    3,462

    99

    3

    Wirral

    3,523

    13

    0

    Bolton

    2,361

    137

    6

    Bury

    1,870

    133

    7

    Manchester

    3,035

    259

    9

    Oldham

    1,437

    36

    3

    Rochdale

    1,394

    42

    3

    Salford

    1,242

    92

    7

    Stockport

    3,448

    200

    6

    Tameside

    1,221

    69

    6

    Trafford

    2,763

    130

    5

    Wigan

    2,256

    159

    7

    Barnsley

    1,260

    39

    3

    Doncaster

    1,924

    101

    5

    Rotherham

    1,667

    51

    3

    Sheffield

    3,864

    305

    8

    Bradford

    3,412

    518

    15

    Calderdale

    1,388

    78

    6

    Kirklees

    3,201

    392

    12

    Leeds

    5,198

    237

    5

    Wakefield

    1,878

    77

    4

    Gateshead

    1,147

    38

    3

    Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

    2,132

    122

    6

    North Tyneside

    1,516

    79

    5

    South Tyneside

    1,028

    64

    6

    Sunderland

    1,803

    126

    7

    Isles of Scilly

    28

    1

    4

    Avon

    8,377

    734

    9

    Bedfordshire

    4,170

    339

    8

    Berkshire

    7,127

    214

    3

    Buckinghamshire

    6,865

    235

    3

    Cambridgeshire

    5,263

    189

    4

    422
    and what percentage they formed of all undergraduates in receipt of awards in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Jackson
    [holding answer 30 March 1990]: The information requested is as follows:
    423

    Mandatory and HE discretionary award-holders1

    HE discretionary award-holders1

    Percentage in receipt of an HE discretionary award

    Cheshire

    10,186

    414

    4

    Cleveland

    4,458

    249

    6

    Cornwall

    3,547

    151

    4

    Cumbria

    3,567

    97

    3

    Derbyshire

    6,410

    209

    3

    Devon

    7,917

    505

    6

    Dorset

    4,745

    289

    6

    Durham

    3,916

    175

    4

    East Sussex

    5,302

    196

    4

    Essex

    10,374

    500

    5

    Gloucestershire

    4,921

    304

    6

    Hampshire

    13,970

    1,909

    14

    Hereford and Worcester

    5,501

    413

    8

    Hertfordshire

    10,352

    589

    6

    Humberside

    6,125

    502

    8

    Isle of Wight

    856

    49

    6

    Kent

    12,102

    793

    7

    Lancashire

    13,528

    1,098

    8

    Leicestershire

    7,411

    312

    4

    Lincolnshire

    4,298

    52

    1

    Norfolk

    4,628

    539

    12

    North Yorkshire

    7,616

    328

    4

    Northamptonshire

    3,582

    218

    6

    Nothumberland

    2,543

    153

    6

    Nottinghamshire

    6,723

    476

    7

    Oxfordshire

    5,517

    226

    4

    Shropshire

    3,443

    146

    4

    Somerset

    3,582

    165

    5

    Staffordshire

    8,065

    622

    8

    Suffolk

    4,064

    215

    5

    Surrey

    12,356

    562

    5

    Warwickshire

    6,894

    158

    2

    West Sussex

    5,808

    247

    4

    Wiltshire

    4,273

    254

    6

    Clwyd

    3,508

    102

    3

    Dyfed

    3,756

    510

    14

    Gwent

    3,819

    268

    7

    Gwynedd

    2,782

    25

    1

    Mid-Glamorgan

    3,438

    4

    0

    Powys

    1,040

    52

    5

    South Glamorgan

    4,357

    400

    9

    West Glamorgan

    3,529

    310

    9

    England and Wales

    423,135

    29,253

    7

    1 Excludes award-holders on postgraduate courses.

    History Teaching
    Mr. Janner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the final report of the national curriculum working party on history; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Straw
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when he first received the draft of the final report of the history working party;

    (2) when he first received the final report of the history working party;

    (3) on what dates in the last year he has met Commander Saunders-Watson, chairman of the history working party;

    (4) when he expects to publish the final report of the history working party.

    Mrs. Rumbold
    [pursuant to her reply 28 March 1990, c. 184]: The final report of the national curriculum history working group will be published tomorrow, Tuesday 3 April. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  HEALTH

    Food Poisoning
    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will identify the general locations of the food poisoning outbreaks occurring in 1989 in which the food vehicle was suspected to be mayonnaise made with fresh shell eggs.

    Mr. Freeman
    The three outbreaks of food poisoning in 1989 in which mayonnaise made from fresh shell eggs was suspected to be the cause occurred within the boundaries of the Trent, Oxford and Wessex health regions.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what criteria his Department uses to assess whether an outbreak of food poisoning has been caused by eggs;

    (2) what distinction his Department draws between the phrases "associated with" and "caused by" in relation to food poisoning.

    Mr. Freeman
    The evidence linking eggs and salmonella infection in man is based on many different kinds of
    425
    information. There is no absolute distinction between the phrases "caused by" and "associated with"; both include these different kinds of information. I also refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on 14 March at column 281.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has issued any specific guidance to caterers who use raw shell eggs for the production of mayonnaise as to how to prevent the multiplication of salmonella or other organisms.

    Mr. Freeman
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave her on 9 March at column 896. The Department asked chief environmental health officers to advise caterers in a letter of 2 September 1988.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many laboratory confirmed cases of salmonella food poisoning were reported by the communicable disease surveillance centre in the weeks ended 23 February, 2 March and 9 March; if he will show in tabular form how many were salmonella typhimurium, salmonella virchow and salmonella enteritidis; and of the enteritidis figures how many were phase type 4.

    Mr. Freeman
    The information is as follows:

    Week ending

    23 February

    2 March

    9 March

    Salmonellas total

    208

    175

    77

    Salmonella typhimurium

    33

    48

    19

    Salmonella virchow

    6

    3

    1

    Salmonella enteritidis

    130

    88

    46

    Phase type 4

    99

    67

    33

    Any weekly reporting system will inevitably be subject to short-term anomalies. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave her on 9 March at columns 895–96. A local postal strike has resulted in fewer reports being received by PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre in recent weeks. This has now ended and coming weeks may therefore show spuriously high totals.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the food poisoning outbreak associated with coleslaw made with commercial mayonnaise at a golf club in the north-west, referred to in the memorandum submitted by the public health laboratory service to the Agriculture Committee, first report, Session 1988–89, HC 108, arose from the use of mayonnaise which had been made with pasteurised eggs.

    Mr. Freeman
    Coleslaw made using commercial mayonnaise was reported to the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre as a suspected vehicle of infection in this outbreak. No further information as to the type, or manufacture, of the mayonnaise is available.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Crown premises have been associated or involved with food poisoning in each of the last five years in which eggs or egg products have been identified or suspected of being vehicles of infection.

    Mr. Freeman
    The outbreaks formally reported to the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre as having occurred in Crown premises in the past five years, where eggs or egg containing food were suspected vehicles of infection are as follows:426

    Number

    1985

    0

    1986

    1

    1987

    0

    1988

    4

    1989

    2

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many food premises and National Health Service hospitals have been prosecuted or are under consideration for prosecution under the Food Act 1981 or the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970 for offences relating to outbreaks of food poisoning in which eggs or egg products were identified or suspected of being vehicles of infection.

    Mr. Freeman
    This information is not held centrally for commercial food premises. We are not aware of any prosecutions or proposed prosecutions against NHS hospitals in relation to food poisoning involving eggs or egg products.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the balance between the incidence of food poisoning caused by eggs and by egg products.

    Mr. Freeman
    In the context of outbreaks, the balance between the incidence of food poisoning caused by eggs, or by egg products or egg containing foods, is overwhelmingly in the direction of egg containing foods. This is because the only egg dishes which are normally free of other components are single cooked eggs such as a boiled egg, and a boiled egg is, by its nature, unlikely to cause an outbreak, because it is normally eaten by only one person.

    A study of sporadic cases of infection with S. enteritidis PT4 (BMJ 1989; 299: 771-3) has shown an association between illness and eating egg dishes lightly rather than well cooked, and with other egg products. Without such a study most cases of sporadic food poisoning cannot be linked to a particular food vehicle with any confidence. Consequently there are insufficient data in sporadic cases to assess the overall balance of risk between eggs and egg products.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to ask the chief medical officer to withdraw his warning on eggs.

    Mr. Freeman
    The chief medical officer continues to keep under review all circumstances and evidence relevant to his current advice on the consumption of eggs.

    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risk to humans of contracting salmonella from eating cooked salmonella-infected hens; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Freeman
    Birds from laying flocks which are infected with salmonella and are to be disposed of under special licence and controlled conditions will be slaughtered and sent to processing plants which use an industrial heat treatment process which achieves the temperatures necessary for the destruction of salmonella.

    Providing poultry is cooked thoroughly and subsequently is handled hygienically there is minimal risk to health. I also refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on 9 March at column 896.

    Registered Homes Act 1984
    Sir Richard Body
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will introduce legislation to extend the provisions of the Registered Homes Act 1984 to all caring establishments irrespective of size and establishment.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    We intend to seek a legislative opportunity to bring homes with fewer than four residents under statutory control.

    HIV
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to enact policies to prevent discrimination against carriers of HIV.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    As the Government's response to the Social Services Committee (Cm 925) made clear, one part of our strategy on HIV infection and AIDS is:"Through a range of measures to foster a climate of understanding and compassion, to discourage discrimination, and to safeguard confidentiality, within the wider context of public health requirements."
    We believe these objectives will best be achieved by educating and informing people, and not by adding to existing legislation.

    Bathing Waters (Pollution)
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence is available to his Department that differs from that included in the 10th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution regarding the health risks posed by bathing in grossly polluted bathing waters; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Freeman
    There is no evidence to dispute the conclusion of this report that the risk of contracting serious illness from bathing in the sea off the United Kingdom appears to be extremely small.

    Research outside the United Kingdom has reported a small risk of contracting minor illnesses such as gastro-enteritis and skin complaints, but gives conflicting reports of which sewage indicator organisms give the best correlation with illness. We wish to be better informed about the position of minor illnesses in United Kingdom waters and the Department of the Environment has already carried out a pilot study to test the proposed methodologies.

    Hepatitis E
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there have been any cases in England whereby hepatitis E has been contracted from faecally infected drinking water.

    Mr. Freeman
    The information requested is not available because there is, as yet, no diagnostic test for hepatitis E virus, though one is under development in the United States of America.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what grounds a formal application for National Health Service trust status will not be approved by his Department.
    428
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    No units will apply for NHS trust status until Parliament has approved the necessary legislation. Each application will be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on an individual basis in the light of local circumstances, following consultation by the region.

    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the Health Service units listed in his Department's press release 89/471 have now indicated that they do not wish to proceed with a first wave application for National Health Service trust status.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State indicated in press release 89/471, formal applications for NHS trust status will not be invited until Parliament has given approval to the necessary legislation. It will be only at this stage that the number of units applying for trust status in April 1991 will be known.

    I understand that five of the original 79 units intending to prepare draft applications for NHS trust status in 1991 have indicated that they may wish to develop their application over a longer time scale. However, I also understand that a number of other units have since indicated that they may prepare draft applications for trust status in 1991.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the waiting lists for each district health authority, SHA and regional health authority for 30 September 1989.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    I am arranging for these summaries to be published in the next couple of weeks. Copies will be placed in the Library.

    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health with what frequency waiting list information is collected; and if he will consider publishing the regional and national totals on a quarterly basis.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 8 March at column 828. We intend to continue the practice of routine twice-yearly publication of waiting list information so as to maintain a consistent series of statistics, without incurring unnecessary expense.

    Manpower Statistics
    Mr. Robin Cook
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be able to give the figures published in section III (manpower) of the health and personal social services statistics for 1988.

    Mr. Freeman
    The information will be published in full in this year's edition of health and personal social services statistics, which is expected to be available in August.

    Menopause
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he proposes to make resources available to organisations which specialise in helping women overcome the trauma of menopause; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    We already provide funds under the section 64 scheme to two voluntary
    429
    organisations, Women's Health Concern and the Amarant Trust, which specialise in offering advice to women who are undergoing the menopause.

    Health Authority Membership
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the 14 regional health authorities and details of the members' role, as under part I of schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act 1977.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Details of the membership of regional health authorities have been placed in the Library.

    Members of regional health authorities are appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to help him discharge his duties to promote a comprehensive health service. Broadly, the role of members is to guide the work of their authority's chief officers, and help them to determine regional policies within the constraints of national policies and priorities.

    Private Nursing Homes
    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's guidelines on the transfer of the infirm from National Health Service care to the private sector with special reference to the procedure to ensure that a person's medical needs are met.

    Mr. Freeman
    Circular HC(89)5 which was issued to health authorities in February 1989, together with a booklet "Discharge of Patients from Hospital" emphasised that proper arrangements should be made for any necessary continuing care before patients are discharged from hospital. A copy has been placed in the Library.

    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the problem of the premature removal of old people from private nursing homes on the instructions of owners, in circumstances where such individuals have been accepted by the owners and then a decision by the owners taken subsequently that the home could not cope with a person's medical needs; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Freeman
    None. The primary role of a nursing home is to meet the nursing needs of its residents and the person responsible for the home has a duty to ensure that sufficient and suitable services are provided.

    Health authorities inspect each home at least twice a year to ensure that the conditions of registration are being met. But inevitably some patients will deteriorate to a point where they need the level of medical care that can be provided only in a hospital.

    Abortion
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the foetuses aborted during 1988–89 showed signs of handicap or disability.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    This information is not collected centrally, but in 1988, the latest full year for which figures are available, 1,797 abortions were performed in which the ground of substantial risk of the child being born seriously handicapped was mentioned by the certifying medical practitioners. The provisional equivalent figure for the first six months of 1989 is 818.

    Embryos (Experiments)
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any human embryos have been used in the United Kingdom for medical experimentation during the past two years; and under what statutory provisions such work is performed.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    Medical experimentation on human embryos is not at present controlled by legislation. However, the Interim Licensing Authority (ILA), which was established by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, currently approves centres which carry out embryo research. The Government have introduced the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to provide a legal framework for scientific developments in the field of human reproduction and embryology.

    Radiation
    Dr. Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has yet received advice from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment in respect of the case control study on leukaemia and lymphoma in young people resident in West Cumbria undertaken by the Medical Research Council epidemiology unit at Southampton university and published in February.

    Mr. Freeman
    Yes. The Government are grateful to COMARE for its preliminary advice and accept all the committee's recommendations. We note that COMARE agrees with the study methodology, and with the broad thrust of the main conclusions.

    The committee advises that there is evidence of a statistical association between the recorded external radiation dose of those employed at Sellafield and the incidence of childhood leukaemia in their offspring. However, we note that the committee is cautious in its interpretation of the results since the study conclusions are based on very small numbers and that further evidence from other studies currently under way is called for. In particular, we note COMARE's view that the case control study demonstrates a statistical association, but no causal relationship. The committee has stated in its advice that workers with relatively high external radiation exposures may also be subject to other factors. In the committee's view, these include possible internal radiation exposure, the possibility of contaminated materials being carried off the site, or other factors, including chemical exposure or contamination. The committee suggests that it is possible that one of these factors, or a combination, could be important.

    In response to the Government's request for advice on possible risks to workers receiving relatively high radiation doses, we accept COMARE's view that it is unable to make specific recommendations on this until the results of other studies are known and there is further information on possible causal mechanisms. However, the committee strongly supports the actions that have been taken to continue to reduce occupational exposures.

    In response to the committee's specific recommendations on studies of the offspring of radiation workers, and on the need for co-ordination of research effort, the

    431
    relevant Government Departments have set up arrangements to enable them to take this work forward as speedily as possible. COMARE will be kept informed at all stages and will be consulted as appropriate.

    Following publication of the case control study, the Department and the Health and Safety Executive have received a number of related research proposals from various individuals and organisations. In addition to these expressions of interest, we will be advertising more widely to invite formal research proposals. Any such proposals will be subject to the usual independent review procedures, but will be considered as swiftly as possible.

    Following is the full text of COMARE's preliminary advice:

    "COMARE STATEMENT of ADVICE

    Subject:
    The Case-control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near the Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria
    M. J. Gardner, M.P. Snee, A. J. Hall, C. A. Powell, S. Downes and J. D. Terrell.

    BACKGROUND
    1. In 1984, the Independent Advisory Group chaired by Sir Douglas Black, reported on the possible increased incidence of cancer in West Cumbria.1 The group recommended that a case control study of leukaemia and lymphoma in young people resident in West Cumbria should be carried out. The study was commissioned by the Department of Health in 1984 and was undertaken by the Medical Research Council Environmental Epidemiology Unit at Southampton University.
    2. The study was designed to examine whether the observed excess of childhood leukaemia and lymphoma near BNFL Sellafield was associated with established risk factors or with factors related to the plant. The results were published in the British Medical Journal dated 17th February 1990.2
    3. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health has referred the study to this Committee for urgent consideration and preliminary advice.3

    Results of the case control study
    4. The study documents an association between the excess of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in children living in the vicinity of Sellafield, and employment of the fathers of the affected children at Sellafield over the period 1950 to 1985. The statistical association with employment at Sellafield generally and the risk of leukaemia in employee's offspring is raised, but is similar to that in the offspring of fathers employed in some other industries in West Cumbria namely the iron and steel, chemical and farming industries.
    5. In particular, the study documents an association between the raised incidence of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in young people and the recorded level of external radiation dose received by the father, while working at Sellafield, before conception of the affected child.
    6. The authors comment that other factors, including ante-natal exposure to x-rays, maternal age, employment elsewhere, eating seafood and playing on the beach did not explain these relationships. The authors also conclude that these results can explain statistically the observed geographical excess of leukaemia and lymphoma in young people in Seascale.

    Government's request to COMARE
    7. The Government noted the results of the study with concern and, in view of its importance, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health referred the study to COMARE for our urgent consideration and preliminary advice. We were asked to consider the study further in the longer term, in conjunction with the results of other studies, completed, underway or planned, recommended in the Black report1, or in our own second and third reports45.
    432
    COMARE's preliminary advice to Government

    METHODOLOGY
    8. The Committee consider that the methods of investigation were appropriate to the aims of the study.

    Conclusions
    9. We agree with the broad thrust of the study's main conclusions which are outlined as follows. Although the number of cases is small, there is evidence of a statistical association between the recorded external radiation dose of those employed at Sellafield and the incidence of childhood leukaemia in their offspring during the study period. We note that the association between paternal occupational external radiation exposure and the incidence of leukaemia in their offspring could be sufficient to explain statistically the initial observation of an excess incidence of leukaemia in young people in Seascale.
    10. We note that the risk of leukaemia in employees' offspring for some other industries in West Cumbria, namely iron and steel, chemicals and farming, is similar to that for employment at Sellafield generally. This study was not set up to investigate other industrial occupations in detail. The possible existence of health effects in offspring of workers in occupations other than those at Sellafield might be the subject of other investigations but they lie outside the scope of our own enquiries. Taken altogether, these results suggest to us that employment at Sellafield itself may not be such an important factor as certain specific occupations within Sellafield which are (in this study) characterised by a relatively high external radiation dose.
    11. The important conclusions of this study are unavoidably based on very small numbers and as these are novel observations which have not been recorded previously, we are cautious in our interpretation. Further evidence from other studies currently underway and planned will enable us to make a firmer assessment of the implications of these results.

    Possible causes
    12. The case control study has demonstrated a statistical association between recorded external radiation dose and childhood leukaemia incidence but this type of study cannot provide evidence of causal relationship. Workers with relatively high recorded external exposures may also be subject to other factors. These include possible occupational internal radiation exposure (rather than external radiation exposure) which might involve radioactivity being concentrated in body fluids or tissues and might lead to a pre-conception or post-conception effect on their offspring; the possibility of contaminated materials being carried off the site leading to unexpected exposure of workers and their families, or other factors, including chemical exposure or contamination. The possibility that one of these factors or a combination of these factors could be important, needs to be investigated. In particular, the full occupational history of the group characterised by high recorded external exposure needs to be studied in detail.
    13. The results from this study place greater emphasis on occupational rather than environmental factors. This is consistent with the view, as stated in our first report6, that "the increased doses [to the local population from the discharges from the Sellafield site] are still well below those that would readily explain the observed cases of leukaemia in Seascale using conventional risk estimates". However, we cannot exclude environmental radiation as a possible contributory factor because causal mechanisms have not yet been identified.
    14. We have already postulated in our second and third reports that the excess of childhood leukaemia observed around the nuclear sites that we have investigated, could be partly related to parental occupation at those nuclear installations. We discussed possible mechanisms by which parental occupational exposure could be implicated. This study supports the case for further investigation of factors related to occupation.

    Recommendations to Government
    15. In our second and third reports, we have already recommended that case control studies around Dounreay and Aldermaston and Burghfield should be set up to investigate the importance of parental occupations and other relevant factors which might be associated with the increased incidence of childhood leukaemia [and other cancers] in those areas.

    433
    Recommendation 1. We now recommend that these case control studies, which are already underway, should be completed as soon as possible, subject to the maintenance of a high scientific standard.
    16. In our second and third reports, we specifically recommended that epidemiological studies should be set up to consider any possible health effects in the offspring of parents occupationally exposed to radiation. The results of the current study strengthen the basis for those recommendations.
    Recommendation 2. We therefore recommend that these studies should be given high priority. A study involving direct approaches to workers to obtain information on their children's health and also a study linking records of all radiation workers to national records of childhood cancer and leukaemia would be complementary and we recommend that both should be undertaken.
    17. We recognise that there are a number of areas of research where studies are necessary to confirm or refute these findings and further biological research is required to investigate possible causative mechanisms. However, we do not wish to see multiple independent studies which would cause undue inconvenience to the small numbers of individuals and families concerned.
    Recommendation 3. We, therefore, recommend that there needs to be some form of coordination of research, to ensure the best possible use of resources and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. This committee would wish to be consulted in any such research coordination.
    18. In the longer term, as requested, we will reconsider the results from this study once the results of the various studies that we have recommended previously 4, 5 become available.

    Interim action
    19. At the request of Government, at the end of last year, we began a review of the situation around Sellafield.7 This includes both current epidemiological evidence and information on discharge and environmental data. We propose to investigate any unexpected potential routes of exposure to radiation including routes via workers. We understand that initiatives have been taken by both the Health and Safety Executive and BNFL in collaboration with the MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, to investigate the situation on the Sellafield site in more detail and, in addition, relevant experimental studies are being done by NRPB and others. We would wish to be kept informed about progress of these investigations as they relate to our own review.
    20. We wish to reiterate that the result of the Cumbria case control study documents an association between occupational external radiation exposure of parents and the incidence of leukaemia in their offspring. However, these findings require confirmation from other studies currently in progress. Furthermore, the causal mechanisms which might lead to this observation are not known. Thus, we are unable, at present, to make specific recommendations to reduce possible risks. We strongly support the actions that have been undertaken to continue to reduce occupational exposures, particularly to those likely to have children, and to counsel workers on the possible risks.

    1 "Investigation of the possible increased incidence of cancer in West Cumbria"—Report of the Independent Advisory Group, Chairman: Sir Douglas Black. HMSO 1984.

    2 "Results of case-control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria." M. J. Gardner, M.P. Snee, A. J. Hall, C. A. Powell, J. D. Terrell, British Medical Journal 300 (6722) 423-429.

    3 Hansard Vol. 167 cols. 397-398.

    4 "Investigation of the possible increased incidence of leukaemia in young people, near, the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment, Caithness, Scotland"—COMARE 2nd Report. HMSO 1988.

    5 "Report on the incidence of childhood cancer in the West Berkshire and North Hampshire area, in which are situated the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston, and the Royal Ordnance Factory, Burghfield"—COMARE 3rd Report. HMSO 1989.

    6 "The Implications of the new data on the releases from Sellafield in the 1950s for the conclusions of the Report on the Investigation of the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria."—COMARE 1st Report. HMSO 1986.
    434
    7Hansard Vol. 164 Cols. 662-663."

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisons (Bathing Facilities)
    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many baths or showers there are; and how often each prisoner has use of a bath or shower in Leeds, Wandsworth, Birmingham and Wormwood Scrubs prisons, respectively.

    Mr. Mellor
    The information is as follows:

    Showers

    Baths

    Leeds

    42

    5

    Wandsworth

    69

    6

    Birmingham

    69

    9

    Wormwood Scrubs

    177

    2

    Prisoners have a minimum of one shower/bath each week, and are allowed more in certain circumstances (eg. following physical exercise or work).

    Prison Statistics
    Mr. Bermingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently being held in Leeds, Wandsworth, Birmingham and Wormwood Scrubs prisons, respectively.

    Mr. Mellor
    On Friday 30 March 1990 the number of prisoners being held in Leeds, Wandsworth, Birmingham and Wormwood Scrubs prisons was as follows:

    Establishment

    Population

    Leeds

    1,243

    Wandsworth

    1,501

    Birmingham

    981

    Wormwood Scrubs

    923

    Electronic Tagging
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a summary of the results of the recent electronic tagging experiment.

    Mr. John Patten
    The trials of electronic monitoring in three areas have yet to be fully evaluated, but it is already clear that the technology works and is extremely effective in detecting any violations of bail conditions, however slight.

    We expect to make available later this year an evaluation of the outcome of these trials.

    Prisoners' Pay
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken following the outcome of the case of Leach v. Home Secretary on deductions from prisoners' pay; what is his estimate of the total amount of underpayment; what plans he has to make retrospective adjustments; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Mellor
    There has been no such judgment. On 22 February 1990 an instruction was sent to governors to stop taking automatic weekly contributions of 3p from prisoners' pay to their general purposes fund. Any such contributions taken after that date will be refunded from the general purpose fund.

    Entry Certificates
    Mr. Fraser
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many entry certificates for visitors from Gambia to the United Kingdom have been(a) granted and (b) refused for the latest period of 12 months for which figures are reasonably available.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    The information available covers the total number of applications in Gambia in 1989 for entry clearance to the United Kingdom by visitors, students, passengers in transit, working holidaymakers, returning residents and persons for employment or self-employment for a period of six months or less; 1,030 such applications were granted initially or on appeal, and 40 were refused initially.

    Trespass
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses he has received to the consultation on section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986; if it is his intention to publish those responses in due course; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    We are giving careful consideration to the 36 responses received. We have no plans to publish them. It is too early to say when we shall have concluded our evaluation of section 39.

    Diminished Responsibility
    Mr. Speller
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases involving killing or rape, pleas of diminished responsibility have been accepted by the courts in the past 10 years.

    Mr. John Patten
    Information is not available centrally on the number of offences of rape where a plea of diminished responsibility was accepted by the court. Data for 1979 to 1988 on the number of convictions for manslaughter where a plea of diminished responsibility was accepted by the court are given in the table.

    Data for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

    Persons convicted of manslaughter, diminished responsibility under the Homicide Act 1957, Section 2

    England and Wales

    Year

    Convictions

    1979

    92

    1980

    78

    1981

    84

    1982

    90

    1983

    84

    1984

    72

    1985

    65

    1986

    49

    1987

    50

    1988

    53

    Pentonville Prison (Unconvicted Prisoners)
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of holding a remand prisoner in Pentonville prison for one year; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Mellor
    In 1988–89 (the latest information available) the average cost per annum of holding a prisoner in Pentonville was £15,132. Information on remand prisoners is not held separately.

    Colombia (Mercenaries)
    Mr. Harry Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East of 21 March,Official Report, column 608, whether he holds any information on organisations involved in the supply of mercenary services to groups in Colombia; and whether he has taken action to prevent British mercenaries from going to Colombia.

    Mr. John Patten
    While I am aware of suggestions that at least one British citizen has renewed an association with drug traffickers in Colombia, I am not aware of information on which criminal proceedings in this country might be founded. We are in touch with the Colombian authorities and have reaffirmed our readiness to co-operate with them in their investigations.

    Police Housing Allowance
    Mr. Shersby
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what method the police arbitration tribunal recommended that rent allowance should be updated in the 29 police forces in England and Wales where rent allowances were last reviewed in 1988; and how this method differed from the existing method of notional rental values.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    It is not clear whether the tribunal ever addressed the question of forces in England and Wales which were due for an uprating and the recommendation from the Police Negotiating Board is apparently defective on this point. My right hon. and learned Friend is prepared, however, to accept that both bodies probably intended to endorse updating by an index partly based on the Building Societies Association's index of house prices and partly taken from the housing costs element of the index of retail prices. Rates increases were to be added.

    Under the existing system force maximum limits of rent allowance are based on the district valuer's assessment of what a typical police house in the force area would fetch if let on the open market, plus rates.

    Mr. Shersby
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost(a) of uprating rent allowance in the 29 police forces whose rent allowance was last reviewed in 1988 by the agreed index recommended by the police arbitration tribunal and (b) by the movement in the retail prices index since their force maximum limit was last reviewed.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Only the broadest estimates are possible because the situation is a hypothetical one with wide regional variations. On the assumption, however, that the index agreed by the Police Negotiating Board would produce increases of the same order as those produced by the rent allowance reviews held in 1989, the likely cost would be at least £55 million in England and Wales. On the basis that the rise in the retail prices index might be 13·7 per cent. indexation on that basis is estimated to be likely to cost about £26·4 million a year in England and Wales.

    Mr. Shersby
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of uprating police force housing allowance by employing a formula consisting of the movement in the housing costs
    437
    element of the retail prices index and the movement in housing costs in an area as expressed in the building societies index for each of the next two years; and by how much less he estimates the allowance will be uprated by relating it only to the total movement in the retail prices index.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    None. There is no basis on which to make a realistic comparison of the likely performance of these indices over the next two years.

    Prisoners (Mental Health)
    Mr. Tom Clarke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) mentally ill and (b) mentally handicapped persons are in prison in England and Wales and in which prisons.

    Mr. Mellor
    On 30 September 1989, the latest date for which information is available, 329 prisoners in England and Wales were considered by medical officers to meet the criteria for detention in hospital, as set out in the Mental Health Act 1983; 264 of these prisoners were considered to be mentally ill, within the meaning of the Act. The term "mentally handicapped" is not one of the four specific categories of mental disorder defined in part 1 of the Act.

    Details of the establishments holding mentally ill and mentally disordered inmates

    Establishment

    Number of mentally ill inmates

    Total number of mentally disordered inmates1

    Ashford

    1

    1

    Aylesbury

    0

    1

    Bedford

    8

    8

    Birmingham

    3

    3

    Bristol

    8

    8

    Brixton

    98

    98

    Brockhill

    1

    1

    Cardiff

    0

    2

    Dartmoor

    2

    2

    Durham

    1

    4

    Exeter

    3

    4

    Feltham

    3

    4

    Garth

    0

    1

    Glen Parva

    3

    4

    Grendon

    12

    16

    Holloway

    7

    8

    Hull

    1

    1

    Kingston

    0

    12

    Leeds

    14

    17

    Leicester

    2

    5

    Acceptances1 for settlement in the United Kingdom for certain nationalities, 1978–89

    1978

    1979

    1980

    1981

    1982

    1983

    1984

    1985

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    Pakistan

    12,420

    10,940

    9,080

    8,970

    7,750

    6,440

    5,510

    6,680

    5,580

    3,930

    4,280

    4,080

    India

    9,890

    9,270

    7,930

    6,590

    5,410

    5,380

    5,140

    5,500

    4,210

    4,610

    5,020

    4,510

    Bangladesh

    4,380

    3,920

    5,210

    5,810

    7,020

    4,870

    4,180

    5,330

    4,760

    3,080

    2,890

    3,780

    Sri Lanka

    850

    920

    770

    790

    790

    920

    760

    930

    840

    720

    860

    790

    Hong Kong

    British Dependent

    Territory Citizens

    1,280

    1,510

    1,710

    1,450

    1,070

    1,050

    1,040

    950

    880

    920

    1,150

    1,360

    Kenya

    710

    600

    490

    430

    490

    640

    610

    520

    350

    400

    440

    370

    Tanzania

    460

    400

    340

    280

    320

    320

    300

    330

    250

    210

    230

    250

    Uganda

    80

    60

    80

    40

    50

    100

    40

    50

    90

    90

    120

    100

    Jamaica

    790

    600

    590

    440

    320

    310

    290

    350

    490

    510

    620

    520

    Guyana

    300

    280

    240

    220

    180

    190

    190

    200

    140

    180

    200

    120

    Barbados

    160

    90

    100

    80

    60

    40

    50

    60

    40

    60

    50

    40

    Trinidad and Tobago

    260

    160

    150

    150

    150

    170

    150

    160

    160

    140

    160

    170

    1 Includes those accepted after initial admission to the United Kingdom for a limited period, as well as those accepted on arrival.

    Mr. Soames
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(1) if he has any proposals to improve the operation of the immigration service at Heathrow;
    438

    Establishment

    Number of mentally ill inmates

    Total number of mentally disordered inmates1

    Lewes

    6

    6

    Littlehey

    5

    5

    Liverpool

    2

    2

    Long Lartin

    5

    8

    Maidstone

    31

    34

    Manchester

    18

    20

    New Hall

    4

    4

    Norwich

    5

    6

    Nottingham

    0

    1

    Parkhurst

    0

    9

    Pentonville

    4

    4

    Preston

    1

    1

    Pucklechurch

    0

    2

    Risley

    0

    1

    Rochester

    1

    4

    Stafford

    2

    2

    Styal

    1

    1

    Swaleside

    1

    1

    Swansea

    1

    1

    Wakefield

    6

    13

    Wayland

    4

    4

    1 Numbers include those who are mentally ill.

    Immigration
    Mr. Wells
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of new immigrants admitted for settlement and the total immigration to and emigration from the United Kingdom, giving a net total, for each of the years 1978 to 1989, for Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Jamaica, Guyana, Barbados and Trinidad.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Estimates of total migration to and from the United Kingdom, including British citizens and all people intending to reside in, or out of, the country for a year or more, are published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in "International Migration 1988", a copy of which is in the Library.

    These estimates are on a different basis from the figures of persons accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom. The total number of acceptances for the nationalities specified in the years 1978–89 are given in the following table. Further details are published in the annual Home Office volume "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" (most recently for 1988, Cm 726).

    (2) what steps he has taken to expedite immigration procedures for tourists at Heathrow and Gatwick.
    439
    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    The operations of the immigration service at Heathrow and Gatwick are kept under regular review and available resources allocated to meet peak demands. Selective embarkation checks were introduced in April 1987 and a streamlined arrival channel for British and other EC passengers was introduced in March 1989. Both these measures have expedited the movement of passengers through the immigration control at Heathrow, Gatwick and elsewhere. I shall continue to monitor the situation closely.

    Drugs
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is available on the number and names of police forces which(a) already routinely refer drug possession offenders to independent drugs advice agencies and (b) have plans to do so.

    Mr. Mellor
    The Home Office is supporting an arrest referral pilot project which aims to put drug misusers arrested at Southwark police station in touch with the local community drug team whether or not they are also charged with a criminal offence. We do not collect information centrally on arrest referral schemes, but a recent survey by the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence found that seven police forces have instituted similar arrangements and many more are planning to do so.

    We greatly welcome schemes on the lines of the Southwark one, which were the subject of a specific recommendation in the "AIDS and Drug Misuse Part 2" report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

    Official Information (Disclosure)
    Mr. Richard Shepherd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish a complete list of the statutory provisions bearing upon the disclosure of official information, other than the Official Secrets Act, in order to update the list of provisions published in appendix V of the Franks report (Cmnd. 5104);

    (2) if he will publish a list of the clauses containing provisions bearing upon the disclosure of official information which appear in Government Bills published to date during the current parliamentary Session.

    Mr. John Patten
    [holding answer 16 January 1990]: Following is the information requested:

    Statutory provisions which create criminal sanctions for the disclosure of certain kinds of information

    Abortion Act 1967, sections (2)1(c) and (3).

    Agricultural Statistics Act 1979, sections 3 and 4.

    Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964, section 13.

    Airports Act 1986, section 74.

    Anatomy Act 1984, section 10(6).

    Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, section 24.

    Atomic Energy Act 1946, section 13.

    Banking Act 1987, sections 82-87.

    Biological Standards Act 1975, section 5.

    Building Societies Act 1986, section 53.

    Census Act 1920, sections 8(1)(a) and 8(2).

    Cereals Marketing Act 1965, section 17.

    Civil Aviation Act 1982, section 23.

    Civil Defence Act 1948, section 4(4).

    Clean Air Act 1956, section 26.

    Coal Act 1938, section 1(3).

    Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, section 56.

    Coast Protection Act 1949, section 25.

    Companies Act 1985, section 449.

    Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985, section 2.

    Competitions Act 1980, section 19.

    440

    Consumer Credit Act 1974, sections 160(4) and 174(5).

    Consumer Protection Act 1987, section 38.

    Control of Pollution Act 1974, section 94.

    Data Protection Act 1984, sections 15, 19, 20 and schedule

    1, paragraph 3.

    Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981, section 13.

    Diseases of Fish Act 1983, section 9.

    Electricity Act 1989, section 57.

    Employment Agencies Act 1973, section 9(4).

    Employment and Training Act 1973, section 4(5).

    Energy Act 1976, schedule 2, paragraph 7.

    Energy Conservation Act 1981, section 20(8).

    Estate Agents Act 1979, section 10.

    European Communities Act 1972, sections 11(2) and 12.

    Factories Act 1961, section 154.

    Fair Trading Act 1973, sections 30(3) and 133.

    Film Levy Finance Act 1981, section 8.

    Finance Act 1969, section 58(6).

    Finance Act 1989, section 182(8).

    Financial Services Act 1986, part VIII.

    Fire Precautions Act 1971, section 21.

    Fisheries Act 1981, section 12.

    Food Act 1984, sections 5(3) and 87(5).

    Gas Act 1965, schedule 6, paragraph 9.

    Gas Act 1986, section 42.

    Harbours Act 1964, section 46.

    Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, sections 27(4) and 28

    Highways Act 1980, section 292(4).

    Industrial Training Act 1982, section 6(2).

    Insurance Companies Act 1982, section 47a.

    Iron and Steel Act 1982, section 33.

    Legal Aid Act 1988, section 38.

    Local Government Finance Act 1982, section 30.

    Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, section 167 and schedule 20, part III.

    Medicines Act 1968, section 118(2).

    Merchant Shipping Act 1988, section 52(3).

    Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Act 1982, section 10(2).

    National Health Service Act 1977, paras 5–7 of schedule 11.

    Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, section 59.

    Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 98.

    Population (Statistics) Act 1938, section 4(2).

    Prices Act 1974, schedule, paragraph 12.

    Public Health Act 1961, section 68.

    Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984, section 62(3).

    Race Relations Act 1976, section 52.

    Radioactive Substances Act 1948, section 7.

    Radioactive Substances Act 1960, section 13(3).

    Rahabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, section 9.

    Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, section 30(4).

    Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, section 41.

    Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961, section 12.

    Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, section 43.

    Sea Fish Industry Act 1970, section 14(2).

    Sex Discrimination Act 1975, section 61.

    Social Security Act 1989, section 19 and schedule 2.

    Statistics of Trade Act 1947, section 9.

    Telecommunications Act 1984, section 101.

    Town and Country Planning Act 1971, section 281(3).

    Trade Descriptions Act 1968, section 28.

    Transport Act 1968, section 87.

    Value Added Tax Act 1983, section 44.

    Water Act 1989, section 174.

    Weights and Measures Act 1985, section 64 and 79(7).

    Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, sections 5, (6)(ii) and 15(4)(c).

    Provisions in Government Bills published in Session 1989–90 to date, which create offences of disclosure of certain kinds of information

    Food Safety Bill, clause 33(7).

    Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, clause 37(5).

  WALES

    A5 (Accidents)
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many accidents were reported during the period January 1988 to December 1989 on the stretch of the A5 which passes through Clwyd.

    Mr. Roberts
    There were 150 personal injury accidents reported during the period January 1988 to December 1989 on the stretch of the A5 which passes through Clwyd. Figures for 1989 are provisional.

    Consultancies
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state(a) the target figure for consultancies per month in Wales under the Government's consultancy initiatives and (b) the spending on consultancy initiatives in Wales for (i) 1988–89 outturn, (ii) 1989–90 estimated outturn, (iii) 1990–91 plans, (iv) 1991–92 plans and (v) 1992–93 plans.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    Formal targets are not set on a regional basis, but take-up of the consultancy initiatives in Wales has consistently been above the level that would be expected from the proportion of eligible firms in Wales. Expenditure on completed consultancies in 1988–89 was £343,000; in 1989–90 the latest figures available (to January) show expenditure at £1,622,000. (A regional analysis for total expenditure on consultancy initiatives, to include evaluation, administration and promotions is not available). It is not possible to provide a regional breakdown of provision for future years as the scheme is demand-led.

    Workplace Nurseries
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the number of workplaces providing nursery care and the number of employees using such facilities; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    Information on which to base reliable estimates is not available centrally. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Welsh Craft Initiative
    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of the Welsh craft initiative.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    The craft initiative was launched in early 1988. Crafts business advisers have been appointed

    School catering current expenditure

    £thousands

    Local authority

    1979–80

    1980–81

    1981–82

    1982–83

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–901

    Cash prices

    Clwyd

    3,317

    2,995

    2,883

    3,262

    3,684

    3,688

    3,734

    4,006

    4,256

    2,984

    3,751

    Dyfed

    3,700

    2,818

    3,086

    3,318

    3,509

    3,016

    3,001

    3,267

    3,531

    3,069

    4,416

    Gwent

    3,969

    4,110

    4,406

    4,846

    4,925

    5,182

    5,150

    5,691

    5,577

    4,260

    4,582

    Gwynedd

    2,414

    2,255

    2,225

    2,418

    2,373

    2,481

    2,572

    2,610

    2,725

    2,557

    2,462

    Mid Glamorgan

    5,807

    5,432

    5,595

    6,281

    6,742

    8,090

    7,566

    7,596

    7,417

    5,775

    7,301

    Powys

    1,344

    1,165

    1,156

    1,494

    1,537

    1,391

    1,167

    1,111

    1,091

    1,053

    1,179

    South Glamorgan

    2,321

    1,780

    1,947

    2,065

    2,208

    2,389

    2,482

    2,119

    2,138

    1,882

    2,318

    West Glamorgan

    3,191

    2,879

    3,006

    3,324

    2,768

    3,460

    2,802

    2,867

    2,841

    2,859

    2,904

    Total Wales

    26,061

    23,435

    24,303

    27,008

    27,747

    29,699

    28,474

    29,267

    29,575

    24,439

    28,912

    442
    and have contacted more than 1,000 Welsh businesses to tell them when help is available. The "Data Crefft" information system for buyers and producers of crafts in Wales is in place and there have been craft initiative stands at all Welsh fairs. Showcases for Welsh craft products have also been set up at the national folk museum (St. Fagans), at the David Morgan department store in Cardiff and at the Wales Centre in Piccadilly, London. There has also been a strong Welsh presence at major trade fairs outside the Principality. A series of marketing and publicity weekends for craftspeople is in progress. An evaluation of the campaign's impact will be carried out once the final year, which starts on 1 April 1990, is complete. I am delighted at the progress that has been made in the improvement of both marketing and quality control.

    Radioactive Dust
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the danger to Towyn residents of contamination by radioactive dust left behind by the floodwater; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) what proposals he has to clean up radioactive dust left behind by floodwater in Towyn earlier this year; a nd if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    Government scientists have visited Towyn and have measured external gamma dose rates, and the radioactivity in the sediment left by the floodwater. The gamma dose rates were indistinguishable from those expected due to natural radiation. The doses of radioactivity which could result from the radioactivity in the sediment were within the normal variations in the natural background exposure to the United Kingdom population.

    The levels of radioactivity in the sediment are such that no special precautions are required for clean-up of the area or disposal of the sediment.

    The impact of the radioactivity in the sediment on livestock is still being assessed.

    School Meals
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the expenditure on school meals for each year from 1978–79 to the latest date available, in current and constant prices.

    Mr. Roberts
    Local authority current expenditure on school catering for each year since 1979–80 is given in the table. Information for 1978–79 is not available. Catering includes both school meals and milk. The school meals element is not available separately.
    443

    Local authority

    1979–80

    1980–81

    1981–82

    1982–83

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–901

    1989–90 prices2

    Clwyd

    6,648

    5,072

    4,447

    4,692

    5,063

    4,830

    4,641

    4,816

    4,856

    3,178

    3,751

    Dyfed

    7,415

    4,773

    4,760

    4,774

    4,823

    3,950

    3,730

    3,927

    4,028

    3,268

    4,416

    Gwent

    7,956

    6,960

    6,796

    6,972

    6,769

    6,785

    6,400

    6,841

    6,362

    4,537

    4,582

    Gwynedd

    4,838

    3,820

    3,432

    3,478

    3,262

    3,249

    3,196

    3,137

    3,108

    2,723

    2,462

    Mid Glamorgan

    11,638

    9,199

    8,630

    9,036

    9,267

    10,593

    9,403

    9,130

    8,461

    6,150

    7,301

    Powys

    2,693

    1,973

    1,783

    2,149

    2,113

    1,822

    1,450

    1,335

    1,245

    1,121

    1,179

    South Glamorgan

    4,652

    3,015

    3,003

    2,971

    3,035

    3,129

    3,085

    2,547

    2,439

    2,004

    2,318

    West Glamorgan

    6,395

    4,876

    4,637

    4,782

    3,805

    4,530

    3,483

    3,446

    3,241

    3,045

    2,904

    Total Wales

    52,234

    39,689

    37,488

    38,855

    38,138

    38,889

    35,388

    35,179

    33,741

    26,028

    28,912

    1 Cash price budgets.

    2 Deflated using GDP deflator.

    Conwy Tunnels
    Mr. Roy Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the original estimated cost of the work on the Conwy tunnels; and what is the current estimate of the total cost.

    Mr. Roberts
    In 1986 when the formal decision to proceed was made and the main contract let, the estimated full cost of the scheme was £158·4 million of which the main contract comprised £102 million. The balance of £56·4 million comprised land, advance works, design and supervision costs.

    The latest estimate of the total cost of the scheme is £170·8 million, as set out in the Welsh Office commentary on public expenditure in Wales 1990–91 to 1992–93, published in March.

    Mr. Roy Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what date work commenced on the Conwy tunnels; what was to be the original date of completion; and what is now the estimated date of completion.

    Mr. Roberts
    Work commenced on Conwy crossing on 3 November 1986 and the projected date for completion at the time was January 1991. However, the contract date for completion is currently August 1991.

  DEFENCE

    Nuclear Submarines
    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on faults reported in the cooling circuits of British nuclear submarines and their effect on the operation of the nuclear-powered submarine fleet.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers that I gave him on 5 and 12 February,Official Report, columns 460 and 117 respectively. The programme of inspections of our nuclear-powered submarines is progressing.

    Meteorological Office
    Mr. Tim Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards establishing the Meteorological Office as an executive agency.

    Mr. Tom King
    I am pleased to announce that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement today visited the Meteorological Office in Bracknell to mark its launch as the first executive agency in the Ministry of Defence.
    444
    The Meteorological Office is a familiar part of our national life. As the United Kingdom's national weather service, it also plays a leading role in the international structure on which modern weather forecasting depends. It has established, over its 135-year history, an unrivalled reputation in its field. Its staff include some of the world's foremost experts in climatic prediction and research. Utilising these resources, one of the office's key aims will be to provide timely and authoritative advice on climatic change to Ministers nationally and internationally through the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change.

    Over the next five years I will be setting the agency a range of targets to ensure that it delivers progressive improvements in the quality and efficiency of the weather-related services it provides to defence, civil aviation, commercial customers and the general public. The initial targets I have set for the Meteorological Office during the period 1990–95 are:
    to devise and implement a system of performance measurement in each of the major activity areas based on output quantity, quality and timeliness and on input costs, to enable publication by 31 March 1991 of targets which require improvements to efficiency that will make a significant contribution to the efficiency targets of the Ministry of Defence as a whole;
    to improve the efficiency of commercial services, measured as the ratio between revenue earned and the cost of provision of such services;
    to reduce by 15 per cent. the standard-error of 48-hour forecasts of mid-atmosphere pressure fields over the North Atlantic and North West Europe;
    to achieve measurable improvement in the quality of public warnings and services to MOD and the CAA, within available resources;
    to achieve measurable improvement in the productivity of operational support services through the use of new technology, automation and the integration of functions;
    to reduce net operating costs in real terms by 1 per cent. in 1990–91 and to continue to achieve this performance with the aim of doubling it by the end of the period; to achieve a 6 per cent. per annum cumulative increase in the uptake of meteorological services as measured by revenue generated from commercial services offered to the public, commerce and industry, exclusive of services to the CAA; and
    to achieve a 10 per cent. per annum cumulative increase in the contribution of commercial service revenue to offsetting core costs.

    NATO Nuclear Planning Group
    Mr. Caborn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters he expects to discuss at the next NATO nuclear planning group meeting.
    445
    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    My right hon. Friend will discuss a wide range of current nuclear issues with his NPG colleagues.

    German Unification
    Mr. Barry Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next be meeting his NATO counterparts to discuss the defence and security implications of a united Germany.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    My right hon. Friend will next be meeting his NATO counterparts at the nuclear planning group meeting in Canada on 9-10 May.

    Low Flying
    Mr. Jopling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring arrangements exist to assess the frequency of low-level aircraft training flights in those areas of the country where these exercises frequently occur.

    Mr. Neubert
    Current records are maintained of usage of the United Kingdom low flying system and these may be supplemented by information from covert surveys of low-flying activity in particular areas, including those where exercises frequently occur, which are carried out by the Royal Air Force police.

    Exhibition (Upper Waiting Hall)
    Mr. Arbuthnot
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Royal Navy to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    I understand that under procedures agreed by the Services Committee arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for an exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 25 June to 29 June.

    RAF Bentwaters
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what date he was first made aware of the purpose of the proposed flight simulator facility at RAF Bentwaters;

    (2) what aircraft type would be supported by the proposed flight simulator building at RAF Bentwaters;

    (3) what is the cost of the proposed flight simulator building at RAF Bentwaters;

    (4) what is the scheduled date for the start of construction of the proposed flight simulator building at RAF Bentwaters.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave him on 7 March 1990 at columns 705-6. Her Majesty's Government have as yet taken no decision regarding approval for the additions and alterations to the flight simulator facility at RAF Bentwaters for which United States congressional funding approval has been granted. It is not for me to comment on the detail of United States internal planning proposals.

    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton of 6 February 1989 Official Report, columns 515-16, if he will seek information from the United States authorities with
    446
    respect to their intentions regarding construction projects at RAF Bentwaters and as to when the process of seeking funding approval was first set in hand; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    I have nothing to add to my answers to the hon. Member on 6 February 1989 (columns 515-16), and 7 March 1990 (columns 706-7) and to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 6 February 1990 (columns 603–4).

    F-15E Aircraft
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects any decision to be made on deployment of F-15E aircraft to the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) on 6 February 1990 at column 604.

    Radar
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the planned new radar to be constructed at Brawdy; what will be the contribution to costs paid by the United Kingdom; and for how long negotiations have been under way with the United States Government on the project.

    Mr. Alan Clark
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on Friday 30 March at columns 328-29. The United Kingdom share of the trial including our share of the running costs will amount to some £15·5 million.

    UK-US Defence Agreements
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what bilateral defence agreements he(a) has signed and (b) expects to sign with the Government of the United States in 1990.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    We have a variety of bilateral agreements under negotiation, and likely to be signed this year, dealing with host nation support, equipment, operations, and other matters. It is not our practice to disclose details of such agreements in advance of their conclusion, and some of them will be classified when finalised.

    No major agreements have been signed this year but we expect a memorandum of understanding to be signed shortly to cover a joint trial in the United Kingdom of a United States "over-the-horizon" radar.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Farms
    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the trend in the number of farms on which it is the farmer's sole occupation to run the farm; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Curry
    Information is not available in the precise form requested. The following table gives the number of whole-time farmers, partners and directors in England over the last 10 years as collected at the June agricultural census:
    447

    Year at June

    Number of whole-time farmers, partners and directors

    1980

    136,565

    1981

    134,428

    1982

    133,579

    1983

    132,922

    1984

    131,682

    1985

    129,830

    1986

    128,473

    1987

    126,671

    1988

    124,518

    1989

    122,351

    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to help young entrants into farming.

    Mr. Curry
    As the Minister said in his reply of 8 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste),Official Report, column 839, this Department gives grants to young farmers under the farm and conservation grant regulations at rates 25 per cent. higher than for other farmers.

    We had also hoped to introduce a scheme to lend milk quota to new entrants. However, the Commission has ruled that there is no basis in Community law for such a scheme and has declined to propose the necessary changes at this stage. In view of strong objections to a scheme based on outright grant of quota, the Government have decided not to proceed with such a scheme.

    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are employed for each one hundred hectares on farms of(a) under 200 hectares, (b) between 200 and 1,000 hectares and (c) over 1,000 hectares.

    Mr. Curry
    The information for England is given in the table, and is taken from the June 1989 agricultural census. Persons employed here cover all categories of the work force (full-time or part-time) including farmers, partners, directors, managers, family and hired workers, and. seasonal or casual employees.

    Total area of holding

    Persons employed per 100 hectares

    Under 200 ha

    6·3

    200 and under 1,000 ha

    2·2

    1,000 ha and over

    1·2

    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has any plans to introduce definitions of small, medium and large farms.

    Mr. Curry
    We have no plans to introduce such definitions, which would have limited relevance given the variations in types of farms and in farming conditions.

    Extensification
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Community proposals for extensification.

    Mr. Curry
    We shall shortly be announcing decisions on pilot schemes for extensification of beef and sheep following consultations with interested organisations and 448
    with the Commission. We are also intending to issue a consultation document outlining a possible extensification scheme under which grant aid would be available to farmers wishing to convert from conventional to organic production.

    Salmonella
    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the quantities of salmonellas found in the stocks of intact grade A eggs.

    Mr. Maclean
    Stocks of intact grade A eggs are not required to be examined for the presence of salmonellas and no information is therefore available. However, I also refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health on 9 March,Official Report, column 895.

    Hydatid Disease
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to eradicate hydatid disease; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Maclean
    The Ministry, in conjunction with the Welsh Office Agriculture Department, has completed a six-year pilot project in Powys for this disease, where the problem is greatest. The objective of the project was to determine the feasibility of controlling or eradicating the disease through the regular dosing of dogs with a de-worming drug. This has resulted in a significant reduction of hydatid infestation in the area. We have no plans to introduce a national eradication policy for this disease.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    St. Leonards Home
    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking concerning the closure of St. Leonards home, Warrenpoint, County Down.

    Mr. Needham
    This is primarily a matter for the Southern health and social services board which is currently exploring, with housing associations and voluntary groups, the possibilities of providing more suitable accommodation. Decisions on the future of the home will be taken only on completion of this investigation and will fully involve the existing residents.

    Downpatrick Hospital
    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what actions have been taken about the time scale and construction of a new hospital in Downpatrick on the site of the Downshire hospital site.

    Mr. Needham
    It is for the Eastern health and social services board to bring forward proposals. The Department of Health and Social Services will then consider the priority of any agreed scheme. The board is at present evaluating a report on the options.

    Education Redundancies
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many redundancies are estimated as likely to occur among(a) lecturers and (b) ancillary staff in each education and library board area in Northern Ireland arising from new funding arrangements for further education colleges.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    Colleges of further education are currently finalising their business plans and these should identify the implications of the new funding arrangements for the staffing of the colleges. It is not yet possible to estimate how many redundancies, if any, are likely to arise as a result of these arrangements.

    Pupil-teacher Ratios
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the pupil-teacher ratio for(a) primary and (b) post primary schools in Northern Ireland at the present time;

    (2) what will be the pupil-teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) post primary schools for the academic year 1990–91 in Northern Ireland.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The latest available information on pupil-teacher ratios for 1989 is as follows:

    Pupil teacher ratios

    Primary

    23·2

    Post-primary

    14·9

    Information about pupil-teacher ratios in 1990–91 is not available.

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–90

    Board

    Pri

    Sec

    Pri

    Sec

    Pri

    Sec

    Belfast

    307

    93

    318

    113

    320

    116

    Western

    212

    46

    223

    67

    250

    68

    North-Eastern

    222

    69

    226

    92

    248

    115

    South-Eastern

    239

    56

    251

    66

    n/a

    n/a

    Southern

    185

    60

    190

    83

    181

    94

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what protection exists for pupils deemed suitable for an academic grammar school course when the grammar school of the parents' choice declines to enrol the child.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    Under the arrangements for transfer from primary to secondary education pupils are not deemed suitable or unsuitable for any type of school. All schools are required to admit pupils up to an approved admissions number and within an overall enrolment number. If a school is oversubscribed it must apply its admissions criteria to select which pupils should be admitted. If the parents of a child who has been refused a place in the school of their choice think the school has not applied its admissions criteria properly they can appeal to an independent statutory appeals tribunal.

    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Department of Education for Northern Ireland can ensure that a transferring pupil from primary school deemed suitable for a grammar school

    Discretionary Teaching Posts
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the total number of applications for discretionary teaching posts received for the 1990–91 academic year by area boards and DENI;

    (2) what is the total number of discretionary teaching posts allocated by (a) area boards and (b) DENI for the 1990–91 academic year to each sector of education in Northern Ireland.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The information in respect of full-time posts is as follows:

    Primary

    Secondary

    Requested

    Allocated

    Requested

    Allocated

    Education and library boards

    1534

    1431

    2n/a

    170

    DENI

    701

    631

    486

    268

    Notes:

    1Information in the form requested is available in respect of four boards only since the other board—the South-Eastern education and library board—has adopted a different procedure for the allocation of teaching posts.

    2 The total number of applications to boards for discretionary posts is not available.

    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will publish details of the numbers of discretionary teaching posts allocated to each sector of education in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years by area board.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The numbers are as follows:

    course of study in Northern Ireland will have a higher priority for a grammar school place than a fee-paying preparatory pupil with lower academic potential at such a grammar school.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    No. The admission of any pupil to a grammar school this year is a matter for the school's board of governors acting within its admissions criteria. The Department of Education (NI) has, however, advised school authorities that if academic ability is a criterion it would be inappropriate for pupils from the preparatory departments of grammar schools to be admitted to secondary departments of grammar schools in preference to other applicants who are judged to have greater academic ability.

    Robberies
    Mr. Maginnis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what information he has been given by Ministers from the Irish Republic concerning the number of bank, post office, wages and comparable robberies carried out in the Irish Republic since the beginning of 1989; which have been deemed attributable to
    451
    the Provisional Irish Republican Army or other paramilitary groups; and what amounts of moneys were involved in those robberies;

    (2) whether he has had discussions with Ministers from the Irish Republic on the extent of funding obtained by the Provisional Irish Republican Army or other paramilitary groups from bank, post office, wages and comparable robberies in the Irish Republic.

    Mr. Cope
    There have been several exchanges through the Anglo-Irish Conference and secretariat about the funding of terrorist organisations. It would not be appropriate to divulge the details.

    Extradition
    Mr. Maginnis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place a copy of the Irish Republic's Supreme Court judgment in the Finucane and Clarke extradition case in the Library.

    Mr. Cope
    I have already done so.

    Prisoners (Mental Health)
    Mr. Tom Clarke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) mentally ill and (b) mentally handicapped persons are in prisons in Northern Ireland and in which prisons.

    Mr. Cope
    On 29 March 1990 there were 12 prisoners undergoing psychiatric treatment or observation as in-patients in prison hospitals in Northern Ireland. Of these, seven were in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry, four in Her Majesty's prison, Belfast, and one in Her Majesty's YOC, Hydebank. None is described as mentally handicapped. Other prisoners may be referred to a consultant forensic psychiatrist from time to time as appropriate.

    1979–80

    1980–81

    1981–82

    1982–83

    1983–84

    1984–85

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–90

    1990–91

    DANI

    —

    —

    45,900

    50,100

    53,600

    55,900

    54,700

    56,000

    61,300

    59,000

    74,700

    66,600

    DHSS

    37,675

    26,948

    51,504

    65,825

    88,767

    157,267

    194,978

    511,293

    249,591

    246,480

    292,000

    383,000

    DENI

    10,081

    13,958

    15,436

    16,655

    17,539

    18,291

    19,119

    19,889

    21,434

    22,008

    539,727

    130,759

    DOE

    286,000

    330,000

    377,000

    375,000

    580,000

    707,000

    951,000

    1,071,000

    1,431,210

    1,781,110

    1,903,745

    1,600,000

    DFP1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    333,000

    379,000

    372,000

    435,000

    493,000

    —

    —

    DED

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2,692,903

    2,959,516

    3,477,000

    3,630,000

    Northern Ireland Office

    Information Service2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    950,910

    1,204,000

    1 Cost of Information Service when under DFP.

    2 Cost of Information Service under NIO.

    Advertising Expenditure
    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The information is not available in the form requested except at disproportionate cost; however the figures for the spending on all advertising and other promotional material in Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office for the years requested is as follows:

    Sexual Harassment
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

    Mr. Cope
    [holding answer 5 March 1990]: Both the Northern Ireland civil service and the home civil service regard sexual harassment at work by their employees as a disciplinary offence.

    Guidance on reporting complaints was issued to Northern Ireland civil servants on 12 October 1988. In the past five years, 13 cases have been recorded by its equal opportunities unit, two of which are still under consideration and five have resulted in disciplinary action being taken.

    With regard to the home civil service part of the Northern Ireland Office, revised guidance on reporting complaints is shortly to be issued to staff. There is no record of any complaints of sexual harassment having been reported to the equal opportunities unit in the past five years.

    Public Relations
    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The information is as follows:

    £

    1979–80

    468,972

    1980–81

    487,393

    1981–82

    613,464

    1982–83

    1,550,896

    1983–84

    2,853,451

    1984–85

    2,699,659

    1985–86

    3,916,824

    1986–87

    3,787,628

    1987–88

    4,028,259

    1988–89

    4,606,655

    1989–90

    15,043,463

    1990–91

    24,716,900

    1 Estimate.

    2 Budget.

    Management Consultants
    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

    Mr. Cope
    [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The information for 1979–80 to 1983–84 throughout Northern Ireland Departments, and the Northern Ireland Office is available only at disproportionate cost. Information for the years 1984–85 to date and the budget for 1990–91 is as follows:

    £

    1984–85

    2,352,311

    1985–86

    2,427,200

    1986–87

    2,742,192

    1987–88

    3,363,213

    1988–89

    4,260,116

    1989–90

    14,650,523

    1990–91

    23,266,600

    1 Estimate.

    2 Budget.

    Internal Audit
    Mr. Tim Smith
    To ask the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland What is the subject matter of the internal audit report which was brought to the attention of a Miniter in his Department in 1989.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The relevant part of the report dealt with the administration of the sheep annual premium scheme and was referred to as background information in proposals for improving controls.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will Publish a table to show the number of civil servants employed in each Department of Health and Social Services office by district council area in Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Needham
    [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The table gives the number of staff in post at February 1990, employed by the Department of Health and Social Services, by district council areas.

    Council area

    Office

    Staff in post

    Antrim

    Antrim SSO

    111

    Ards

    Newtownards SSO

    87

    Armagh

    Armagh SSO

    89

    Ballymena

    Ballymena SSO

    102

    Ballymoney

    Ballymoney SSO

    77

    Banbridge

    Banbridge SSO

    66

    Belfast

    All Offices1

    3,958

    Carrickfergus

    Carrickfergus SSO

    64

    Castlereagh

    Knockbreda SSO

    103

    Coleraine

    Coleraine SSO

    111

    Cookstown

    Cookstown SSO

    70

    Craigavon

    Lurgan SSO

    104

    Portadown SSO

    71

    Down

    Downpatrick SSO

    64

    Ballynahinch SSO

    41

    Newcastle SSO

    42

    Dungannon

    Dungannon SSO

    102

    Fermanagh

    Enniskillen SSO

    116

    454

    Council area

    Office

    Staff in post

    Larne

    Larne SSO

    62

    Limavady

    Limavady SSO

    61

    Lisburn

    Lisburn SSO

    102

    Londonderry

    Londonderry SSO

    262

    Lisahally

    169

    Magherafelt

    Magherafelt SSO

    85

    Moyle

    Nil

    0

    Newry and Mourne

    Newry SSO

    153

    Kilkeel SSO

    41

    Newtownabbey

    Newtownabbey SSO

    113

    North Down

    Bangor SSO

    93

    Omagh

    Omagh SSO

    96

    Strabane

    Strabane SSO

    97

    1An office breakdown for the Belfast area could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

    Fisheries Research
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the number of staff and salary scales and the total salaries projected for the full complement of scientific staff for the research vessel Lough Foyle in each of the present and the next two financial years.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 23 March 1990]: The information is as follows:

    Grade

    Average salary costs(1990–91 prices)£k

    Staff in post 1989–90

    Predicted staff in post 1990–91

    Predicted staff in post 1991–92

    SPSO

    35,446

    1

    1

    1

    SSO

    20,699

    0

    2

    2

    HSO

    16,568

    0

    3

    3

    SO

    13,283

    1

    5

    5

    ASO

    10,261

    1

    2

    2

    AO

    9,145

    0

    1

    1

    Total Numbers

    3

    14

    14

    Total salary costs

    1£9,570

    £223,000

    £237,000

    1 Variable part-year in post.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 7 March,Official Report, column 661, he will publish a table showing (a) the period of each charter of the vessel Lough Foyle since it came into Government ownership, (b) the lessee for each of those charters, (c) the average costs for each day and each charter, (d) the sum paid per day for each Of those charters, and (e) the sum paid for each charter.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: No.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 6 March,Official Report, column 571, he will publish a table to show (a) the projected total cost of the current year, (b) the projected total cost for each of the next three years or financial years and (c) the projected cost of (i) crew salaries, (ii) scientific staff salaries, (iii) shore-based staff, (iv) depreciation and replacement costs of the vessel, and (v) other costs associated with the vessel.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The information is as follows:

    455

    £

    (a) Estimated running costs of the DANI research vessel for 1989–90

    504,600

    £

    (b) Projected running costs for the DANI research vessel:

    1990–91

    617,900

    1991–92

    662,500

    1992–93

    680,100

    (c) Projected salary costs for next three financial years:

    £

    (i) Crew salaries

    1990–91

    277,000

    1991–92

    299,000

    1992–93

    323,000

    (ii) Scientific staff salaries (shore-based and sea-going staff)

    1990–91

    652,000

    1991–92

    691,000

    1992–93

    733,000

    (iii) See (ii) above

    (iv) Depreciation is estimated at 6 per cent. per annum. Replacement of the vessel has not yet been considered.

    (v) None.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been undertaken of the total job loss to the Coleraine area, including spouses employment, staff employed in spouses' business full-time and part-time, as a consequence of moving the fisheries research laboratory to Belfast; and whether any assessment of the cost to state benefits has been taken into account as part of a cost benefit analysis.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: None.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what computer links exist between(a) the Coleraine fisheries laboratory and its Belfast headquarters and (b) the headquarters and the freshwater biological unit at Antrim.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]:
    The answer is:

    (a) A PDP 11/73 computer at Coleraine is linked to a VAX 6320 computer at Belfast via a 1200 baud dedicated British Telecom line.

    (b) A computer terminal at Antrim is linked to a VAX 6320 computer at Belfast via a 1200 baud dedicated British Telecom line.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost of the new building work required in Belfast to provide accommodation for(a) the scientific staff for the research vessel Lough Foyle, (b) the transferred fisheries research laboratory staff and (c) the transferred freshwater biological unit staff; and what is the size of the building required to house them.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: Staff from the research vessel Lough Foyle, the fisheries research laboratory and the freshwater biological investigation unit will be accommodated in the new building of 17,175 sq ft at the Department's agriculture and food science centre, Newforge lane, Belfast, at an estimated cost of £1·4 million excluding VAT but including 6 per cent. contingencies.
    456
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the market value of(a) the fisheries laboratory building at Coleraine and (b) the building occupied by the freshwater biological unit at Antrim.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The estimated market values of the fisheries research laboratory at Coleraine and the freshwater biological investigation unit at Antrim are £100,000 and £225,000 respectively. The latter accommodation will be fully utilised by Greenmount agricultural college when the accommodation becomes available.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the size of the building at Antrim presently occupied by the freshwater biological unit; and whether it is occupied to capacity.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The freshwater biological investigation unit building at Antrim is some 5,128 sq ft and is fully utilised by DANI staff at the freshwater biological investigation unit.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the size of the fisheries research laboratory at Coleraine; and whether it is occupied to capacity.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The fisheries research laboratory at Coleraine is approximately 9,400 sq ft and is fully utilised.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research into salmon in the Foyle system has been carried out by the fisheries research laboratory at Coleraine in each of the last five years; and how much time and money was expended on such research in each of those years.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: None.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    USSR (Emigrants)
    Mr. McAvoy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representations to the Government of the USSR regarding emigrants from that country to the state of Israel; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    No.

    Hostages (Middle East)
    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British efforts to free the hostages held in the middle east.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of 30 January to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown).

    Zimbabwe
    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet his Zimbabwean counterpart.
    457
    Mr. Maude
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no such plans.

    Horn of Africa
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in the Horn of Africa.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The escalation of fighting in northern Ethiopia has set back both the relief operations and the peace talks. We welcome the recent agreement to allow relief supplies across the lines from the south. The first food convoys are now entering Tigray by this route. Peace talks between the Government and TPLF have resumed in Rome. We are urging the resumption of talks between the Government and the EPLF. In Somalia, the Government have announced political and economic reforms, but the rebels refuse to negotiate.

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley, 19 February,Official Report, column 559, what are the respective numbers of representatives currently allowed residence in each country.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The present agreed overall limit for officials and certain other categories of representative in each country is 205.

    Fiji
    Dr. Marek
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain copies of the latest proposals for a new constitution for Fiji and make them available to hon. Members.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    We are seeking copies of the latest proposals which were discussed at the recent Great Council of Chiefs meeting. I shall make arrangements for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

    India
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his statement of 22 March,Official Report, column 1338, how many of the (a) 1,839 Indian students admitted to the United Kingdom in 1988–89 and (b) 130 Indian students, awarded special Foreign Office scholarships for this financial year, are of Sikh origin; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Sainsbury
    Her Majesty's Government-funded scholarships are awarded to Indian students regardless of religion or race, and no record is maintained of their religious or ethnic background.

    Iran
    Mr. Latham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protests he has conveyed through diplomatic channels to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the broadcast on Tehran radio on 6 March of a speech by the President of the Supreme Court of Iran regarding the alleged duty of 458
    Muslims to murder Mr. Salman Rushdie; and whether he will make it clear to the Iranian authorities that normal relations between the United Kingdom and the Islamic Republic will be impossible so long as prominent Iranian figures continue to repeat these threats.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    We have made it clear to Iran on many occasions that the threat to the life of Mr. Rushdie must be lifted. We can have normal relations with Iran only if she fulfils her international obligations, in particular by removing the use or threat of violence against citizens of other countries.

    Mr. Latham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights the speech broadcast on 6 March by the President of the Supreme Court of Iran in which the President claimed that the Islamic Republic was implementing sentences such as stoning to death for adultery; and whether he will request that such punishments be investigated by the commission.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The United Kingdom has played an active role in discussions on Iran in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We hope that when the UN special representative pays his second visit to Iran he will be given the opportunity to investigate thoroughly all aspects of human rights there by the Iranian authorities. We shall pay close attention to his findings.

    Iraq
    Mr. Latham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will instruct his Department to convey to the official representatives of the Arab League in London the views of Her Majesty's Government on the resolution of the Arab League Council on 26 March supporting Iraq and criticising Her Majesty's Government regarding the killing of Mr. Farzad Bazoft; and whether he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The Arab League in Tunis was fully briefed on our reaction to the Iraqi execution of Farzad Bazoft. We see nothing to be gained from pursuing this matter further.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Adley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the 25,000 citizenships offered to Hong Kong people by the Government of Singapore have been taken up, at the latest date for which information is available.

    Mr. Maude
    We understand that, at the end of February, 8,605 Hong Kong people had been granted approval in principle under the Singaporean Government's scheme for permanent resident status in Singapore (citizenship is not offered under the scheme). Of those granted approval, 588 are now settled in Singapore, of whom 494 had already been living there when the scheme was introduced.

    EC Directives
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many European Community directives are the subject of legal action by the Commission against the United Kingdom; when each
    459
    directive, respectively, entered into force; and what is the stated reason in each case for action taken by the Commission.

    Mr. Maude
    There are currently three cases brought by the Commission before the European Court of Justice involving alleged failure of the United Kingdom to implement EC directives correctly. The directives are:—the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207), due for implementation on 12 August 1978;
    —the Drinking Water Directive (80/778), due for implementation on 18 July 1982;
    —the Bathing Water Directive (76/160), due for implementation on 31 December 1977.

    EC Regulations
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many regulations have been issued by the European Commission since the United Kingdom joined the European Communities; and how many of these regulations Her Majesty's Government have not accepted.

    Mr. Maude
    Since the United Kingdom's accession to the EC a total of 21,806 regulations have been adopted, of which 4,946 are still in force. (Many regulations are short-lived, for example, in the agriculture sector). Regulations are directly applicable in all member states.

    EC Court of Auditors
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities.

    Mr. Maude
    The role of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities is set out in detail in article 206a of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community. The latest Court of Auditors report on the Community budget was published in the Official Journal (C312) on 12 December 1989 and was placed in the Library of the House.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Jacques Arnold
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

    Mr. Maude
    The Foreign Affairs Council meets today. Ministers are expected to consider proposals from the

    Table A: Prosecutions for underpayment

    Division

    1979

    1980

    1981

    1982

    1983

    1984

    1985

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    London

    3

    —

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    South East

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    2

    1

    4

    Eastern

    —

    1

    1

    2

    1

    1

    —

    1

    —

    2

    —

    South West

    4

    2

    3

    —

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    2

    2

    Midlands

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    1

    1

    1

    North West

    —

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    2

    —

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    1

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    2

    1

    Northern

    1

    3

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Scotland

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Totals

    9

    8

    8

    4

    2

    2

    2

    2

    4

    10

    9

    460
    Commission on European Community policy on Japanese car imports, and to discuss central Europe. The Commission will report on its explanatory talks with senior officials from the EFTA countries concerning a possible comprehensive EC/EFTA agreement to create an enhanced free trade area. Ministers will discuss preparations for the inter-governmental conference, and the implications of rising third country immigration into the Community. The already agreed EC/Argentina trade and economic co-operation agreement is expected to be signed in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council, with Foreign Minister Cavallo signing for Argentina.

    The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 23 April for a further discussion of economic and monetary union and to prepare for the spring IMF/IBRD meetings. Ministers will discuss the proposal to amend directive 69/169/EEC on intra-Community travel. As a transitional step towards completion of the internal market, the Commission proposes progressive increases in tax-paid allowances in intra-Community travel until they are completely lifted on 1 January 1993. ECOFIN will also discuss the package of three tax measures (the draft mergers directive, parent/subsidiaries directive and arbitration procedure) which are designed to encourage co-operation between companies based in different member states. There may be a discussion of the proposed increase in the EURATOM borrowing limit, on the proposal for a revision to the financial perspective and on the takeover directive.

    The Agricultural Council will meet on 25-26 April to discuss the non-food uses for agricultural produce and beef balance sheet import quotas. It will possibly also discuss agriculture price proposals, the intra-EC trade in horses and veterinary medicines.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Wages Councils
    Mr. Nellist
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update the breakdown, by wages inspectorate division, of the information given in his answer of 1 March 1989,Official Report, columns 199-201, regarding the establishments underpaying and prosecutions for underpayment of wages council rates.

    Mr. Nicholls
    The information requested is given in the following tables:
    461

    Table B: Establishments found to be underpaying 1979–85

    Division

    1979

    1980

    1981

    1982

    1983

    1984

    1985

    London (East)

    431

    495

    440

    391

    441

    324

    298

    London (West)

    249

    259

    270

    294

    339

    354

    357

    South East

    521

    769

    749

    764

    871

    703

    670

    Southern

    585

    576

    450

    441

    494

    475

    556

    Eastern

    685

    941

    848

    726

    727

    914

    688

    South West

    1,010

    1,201

    1,070

    954

    1,078

    1,033

    929

    Midlands (East)

    634

    771

    623

    532

    573

    534

    430

    Midlands (West)

    605

    674

    598

    666

    543

    552

    712

    North West (East)

    946

    879

    613

    648

    704

    560

    529

    North West (West)

    1,115

    1,060

    688

    652

    865

    886

    804

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    1,156

    1,119

    871

    964

    941

    1,026

    818

    Northern

    893

    902

    736

    552

    630

    721

    815

    Scotland (East)

    710

    687

    529

    515

    525

    480

    488

    Scotland (West)

    597

    750

    556

    349

    389

    365

    361

    Wales

    832

    1,071

    1,033

    821

    722

    534

    609

    Totals

    10,969

    12,154

    10,074

    9,269

    9,842

    9,461

    9,064

    Table C

    Establishments found to be underpaying 1986–89

    Division

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    London

    608

    270

    317

    229

    South East

    646

    503

    537

    478

    Eastern

    974

    405

    462

    432

    South West

    832

    961

    1,156

    960

    Midlands

    943

    525

    747

    822

    North West

    1,397

    541

    869

    1,104

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    805

    511

    631

    569

    Northern

    844

    404

    369

    387

    Scotland

    656

    323

    509

    547

    Wales

    500

    —

    —

    —

    Totals

    8,205

    4,443

    5,597

    5,528

    Note: The statistics of underpayments have been separated into two tables because the divisional boundaries were changed in 1986.

    Textiles and Footwear
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of jobs lost in the textile and footwear industries, by industry, since January 1989, by month, giving the most recent figures available; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Nicholls
    There are no figures for job losses or job gains. The numbers of employees in the textile and footwear industries are supplied in the table.

    Employees in textile and footwear industries Great Britain

    Thousands

    Textiles SIC class 43

    Monthly change

    Footwear SIC group 451

    Monthly change

    1989

    January

    223·2

    —

    49·0

    —

    February

    219·4

    -3·8

    48·5

    -0·5

    March

    218·5

    -0·9

    48·1

    -0·4

    April

    217·5

    -1·0

    47·7

    -0·4

    May

    216·4

    -1·0

    47·3

    -0·4

    June

    217·7

    1·3

    47·1

    -0·2

    July

    215·4

    -2·3

    46·9

    -0·2

    August

    215·6

    0·2

    46·3

    -0·7

    September

    218·0

    2·5

    45·9

    -0·4

    October

    217·2

    -0·8

    45·9

    0·0

    November

    217·3

    0·1

    45·8

    -0·2

    December

    214·6

    -2·7

    45·5

    -0·3

    1990

    January

    213·2

    -1·4

    44·9

    -0·5

    Source: Standard Industrial Classification 1980.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. McLeish
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each of the training and enterprise councils receiving development funding and those applications still under consideration(a) the number of board members, (b) the names of directors and occupation, (c) the company or interest group being represented and (d) the name of the chairperson.

    Mr. Eggar
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: There are 66 training and enterprise councils (TECs) which have received development funding. These are shown together with the chair of each TEC and the position which the chair holds in his-her company. A full list of members of each TEC will be set out in its corporate plan.

    South East
    Mr. L. Grice (Interim Chairman), Essex TEC—Chairman Lafarge Aluminates
    Mr. M. Wylie, Hampshire TEC—Managing Director Colt International Limited
    Mr. J. Blackwell, Heart of England TEC—Chairman The Blackwell Group
    Mr. A. Saint, Hertfordshire TEC—Director and General Manager British Aerospace
    Mr. R. Barnes, Isle of Wight TEC—Operations Director and General Manager Plessey Radar Limited
    Mr. A. Morton, Kent TEC—British Co-Chairman Eurotunnel
    Mr. P. Muir, Milton Keynes TEC—Managing Director Avebury Products Limited
    Mr. T. Evans, Thames Valley TEC—Chairman Foster Wheeler (GB) Limited

    London
    Mr. C. West, AZTEC (Kingston/Merton/Wandsworth)—Director and General Manager British Aerospace Military Aircraft Limited
    Mr. D. Dickinson, London East TEC—Corporate Director Stanhope Properties Limited
    Mr. D. Wells, South London TEC—Regional Chairman British Gas plc South Eastern Region
    463
    South West
    Mr. A. FitzSimons, Avon TEC—Managing Director and Chief Executive Bristol and West Building Society
    Mr. E. Dancer, Devon and Cornwall TEC—Managing Director Dartington Crystal
    Mr. P. Allsebrook CBE, Dorset TEC—Chairman TNT (UK) Limited
    Mr. J. Hazelwood, Gloucestershire TEC—General Manager Birds Eye Wall's Limited
    Mr. D. Gwyther, Somerset TEC—Managing Director Showerings Limited

    West Midlands
    Mr. C. Darby, Birmingham TEC—Managing Director Bass Inns and Taverns Limited
    Mr. E. Roberts, CENTEC (Central England)—Chairman and Chief Executive Heath Springs Limited
    Mr. G. Whalen, Coventry/Warwickshire TEC—Managing Director Peugeot Talbot Motor Company Limited
    Mr. P. White, Dudley TEC—Chairman and Chief Executive Wyko Group Limited
    Mr. M. Worley, Sandwell TEC—Chairman William King Limited
    Mr. C. Mitchell, Staffordshire TEC—Chairman and Managing Director Century Oils
    Mr. J. Sayers (Interim Chairman), Walsall TEC—Managing Director InterTAN Europe plc
    Mr. R. Carver, Wolverhampton TEC—Chairman Carver (Wolverhampton) limited
    East Midlands and Eastern
    Mr. I. Dixon, Bedfordshire TEC—Joint Chairman and Chief Executive Willmott Dixon Holdings Limited
    Mr. A. Maltpress, Central and South Cambridgeshire TEC —Managing Director Ciba-Geigy Plastics Limited
    Mr. P. Salisbury, Greater Peterborough TEC—Managing Director Peter Brotherhood Limited
    Mr. J. Lineker, Norfolk and Waveney TEC—General Manager Birds Eye Wall's Limited
    Mr. R. Pelham, North Derbyshire TEC—Managing Director Chesterfield Cylinders Limited
    Mr. J. Darbyshire, North Nottingham TEC—Chairman A. H. Turner Group Limited
    Mr. A. Stoughton-Harris, Northamptonshire TEC—Executive Vice Chairman Nationwide Anglia Building Society
    Mr. P. Burden, Southern Derbyshire TEC—Chairman Rolls-Royce and Associates Limited
    Mr. R. Chesterman, Suffolk TEC—Managing Director Delta (MB) Limited

    Yorkshire and Humberside
    Mr. M. Bainbridge, Barnsley and Doncaster TEC—Works Manager ICI Fibres
    Mr. J. Donovan, Bradford and District TEC—Chairman and Managing Director Judith Donovan Associates Limited
    464
    Mr. T. Gartland, Calderdale and Kirklees TEC—Chief Executive FKI plc
    Sir Gordon Linacre CBE, Leeds TEC—Chairman Yorkshire Post Newspapers
    Mr. C. Shepherd, North Yorkshire TEC—Chairman Shepherd Building Group Limited
    Mr. K. Knaggs, Rotherham TEC—Chairman and Managing Director Rotherham Engineering Steels
    Mr. R. Field OBE, Sheffield TEC—Chairman J. and J. Dyson plc
    Mr. C. Marshall, Wakefield TEC—Managing Director Anglo Bellamy Wilkinson

    North West
    Mr. D. Dewin, Bolton and Bury TEC—Director and General Manager British Aerospace
    Mr. W. G. Byrnes, CEWTEC (Chester, Ellesmere Port and Wirral)—Managing Director UML Limited
    Mr. A. Sanderson, Cumbria TEC—Managing Director Cavaghan and Gray Limited
    Mr. H. A. Cann, East Lancashire TEC—Chairman Terminal Display Systems Limited
    Mr. J. Taylor, LAWTEC (Lancashire Area West)—Chairman J. R. Taylor (Fashions) Limited
    Mr. G. Maddrell, Manchester TEC—Group Chief Executive Tootal Group plc
    Mr. A. Rothwell, Merseyside TEC—Operations Manager Ford Motor Company
    Mr. N. Stoller MBE, Oldham TEC—Chairman Seton Healthcare Group
    Mr. B. Heron (Interim Chairman), Rochdale TEC—Formerly Chief Executive TBA Industrial Products Limited
    Mr. E. Judge, St. Helens TEC—Chief Executive Pilkington Glass
    Mr. T. Booth, South and East Cheshire TEC—Chairman and Chief Executive Refuge Group plc
    Mr. T. Weatherby CBE, Stockport and High Peak TEC—Executive Chairman Whitecroft plc
    Mr. P. Sneddon, Wigan TEC—General Manager H. J. Heinz Company Limited

    Northern
    Mr. B. Robinson OBE, County Durham TEC—Managing Director Tallant Engineering
    Mr. B. Best, Northumberland TEC—Chairman and Managing Director Tolag and Company Limited
    Mr. P. Kerr, Teesside TEC—Managing Director Tioxide United Kingdom Limited
    Dr. R. Iley CBE, Tyneside TEC—Joint Managing Director Cookson Group
    Mr. J. Anderson, Wearside TEC—Managing Director Mill Garages Group
    465
    Wales
    Mr. P. Quinn, Gwent TEC—General Manager and Director Lucas Heavy Duty Braking Systems
    Mr. J. Phillips, Mid Glamorgan TEC—Chairman and Managing Director Reliance-Barker-Davies Limited
    Mr. J. Troth, North East Wales TEC—Managing Director Denis Ruabon Limited
    Mr. T. Jones, North West Wales—Chief Executive Pilkington Optronics Division
    Mr. D. G. Margetts, Powys TEC—Chairman Elkay Electrical Manufacturing Company Limited
    Mr. R. Helliwell, South Glamorgan TEC—Group Director William Cowlin and Sons Limited
    Mr. P. Allen CBE, West Wales TEC—Managing Director British Steels Strip Products

    Labour Stastistics
    Mr. McLeish
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people unemployed for less than(a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) four years, (e) five years and (f) more than five years; and how many in each group are (i) male and (ii) female; for the United Kingdom and each standard region for Scotland and Wales.

    Mr. Nicholls
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The information is contained in the following table and can also be obtained from the NOMIS database system in the House Library.

    Duration of Unemployment

    Male

    Female

    Total

    South East

    Less than 1 year

    178,454

    71,278

    249,732

    Less than 2 years

    207,990

    80,818

    288,808

    Less than 3 years

    220,573

    84,611

    305,184

    Less than 4 years

    228,495

    87,098

    315,593

    Less than 5 years

    234,754

    89,041

    323,795

    5 years or more

    19,787

    5,119

    24,906

    South West

    Less than 1 year

    50,595

    22,079

    72,674

    Less than 2 years

    57,678

    24,743

    82,421

    Less than 3 years

    60,507

    25,744

    86,251

    Less than 4 years

    62,253

    26,401

    88,654

    Less than 5 years

    63,684

    26,916

    90,600

    5 years or more

    4,581

    1,633

    6,214

    East Anglia

    Less than 1 year

    19,867

    7,919

    27,786

    Less than 2 years

    22,099

    8,730

    30,829

    Less than 3 years

    23,020

    9,064

    32,084

    Less than 4 years

    23,616

    9,290

    32,906

    Less than 5 years

    24,081

    9,483

    33,564

    5 years or more

    1,853

    542

    2,395

    West Midlands

    Less than 1 year

    69,046

    29,830

    98,876

    Less than 2 years

    83,670

    34,811

    118,481

    Less than 3 years

    90,127

    36,856

    126,983

    Less than 4 years

    94,310

    38,288

    132,598

    Less than 5 years

    97,774

    39,465

    137,239

    5 years or more

    15,617

    3,606

    19,223

    East Midlands

    Less than 1 year

    48,801

    20,347

    69,148

    Less than 2 years

    57,128

    23,210

    80,338

    Less than 3 years

    60,867

    24,319

    85,186

    Less than 4 years

    63,088

    25,141

    88,229

    466

    Duration of Unemployment

    Male

    Female

    Total

    Less than 5 years

    64,777

    25,744

    90,521

    5 years or more

    7,114

    1,878

    8,992

    North West

    Less than 1 year

    107,802

    43,836

    151,638

    Less than 2 years

    133,822

    51,549

    185,371

    Less than 3 years

    145,216

    54,619

    199,835

    Less than 4 years

    151,986

    56,589

    208,575

    Less than 5 years

    157,304

    58,075

    215,379

    5 years or more

    23,507

    4,308

    27,815

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    Less than 1 year

    79,658

    30,882

    110,540

    Less than 2 years

    95,608

    35,831

    131,439

    Less than 3 years

    102,498

    37,927

    140,425

    Less than 4 years

    106,955

    39,287

    146,242

    Less than 5 years

    110,584

    40,351

    150,935

    5 years or more

    13,538

    2,875

    16,413

    Northern

    Less than 1 year

    59,131

    22,695

    81,826

    Less than 2 years

    72,906

    26,526

    99,432

    Less than 3 years

    78,332

    28,006

    106,338

    Less than 4 years

    81,636

    28,963

    110,599

    Less than 5 years

    84,373

    29,707

    114,080

    5 years or more

    12,794

    2,242

    15,036

    Wales

    Less than 1 year

    46,126

    17,265

    63,391

    Less than 2 years

    54,679

    19,554

    74,233

    Less than 3 years

    58,153

    20,490

    78,643

    Less than 4 years

    59,940

    21,046

    80,986

    Less than 5 years

    61,418

    21,462

    82,880

    5 years or more

    6,318

    1,151

    7,469

    Northern Ireland

    Less than 1 year

    32,066

    15,225

    47,291

    Less than 2 years

    42,397

    18,758

    61,155

    Less than 3 years

    48,706

    20,404

    69,110

    Less than 4 years

    53,599

    21,555

    75,154

    Less than 5 years

    57,759

    22,432

    80,191

    5 years or more

    17,808

    2,414

    20,222

    Scotland

    Less than 1 year

    94,419

    42,113

    136,532

    Less than 2 years

    118,358

    49,237

    167,595

    Less than 3 years

    128,717

    52,270

    18,978

    Less than 4 years

    135,169

    54,097

    189,266

    Less than 5 years

    140,257

    55,601

    195,858

    5 years or more

    19,623

    3,695

    23,318

    United Kingdom

    Less than 1 year

    785,965

    323,469

    1,109,434

    Less than 2 years

    946,335

    373,767

    1,320,102

    Less than 3 years

    1,016,716

    394,310

    1,411,026

    Less than 4 years

    1,061,047

    407,755

    1,468,302

    Less than 5 years

    1,096,765

    418,277

    1,515,042

    5 years or more

    142,540

    29,463

    172,003

    Consultancies
    Mr. Tim Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.
    467
    Mr. Eggar
    [holding answer 28 March 1990]: I estimate that the total expenditure by my Department (excluding the Training Agency) in the financial year 1989–90 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, will be £3·1 million. The budget for the financial year 1990–91 is £5·0 million.

    The following firms were awarded consultancy contracts by the Department of Employment, excluding the Training Agency, during the financial year 1989–90:

    Firm and subject of assignment
    Algis Consultants—Service excellence in personnel work
    Arthur Anderson—Optical Technology. Planning for NUBS2.
    Anderson Limited—BRPS2 Development.
    Asset Technology plc—Customisation of optical character recognition interface.
    D. E. Barnard Systems Limited—Implications of change study. Computer risk analysis review.
    BIS Applied Systems Limited—Quality assurance on communications project. Communications requirements study. Communications security review. Communications study for relocation project.
    British Research Market Bureau—Multi-functioning clients survey.
    Business Intelligence Limited—Single Terminal Access Project.
    Carrington Computer Consultants Limited—Specialist software advice.
    Civil Service College—Analysis of trend in data from Labour Force Survey.
    Coopers and Lybrand—Advice on procurement of replacement personnel records system.
    Crow Associates—Improving communications.
    Datasolve—Small systems development.
    DBI Associates—System testing planning for NUBS2 Project Support and Technical Assurance. Single Terminal Access Project Evaluation and Development of NUBS2 Project Management System.
    Denham Nash Limited—Staff Attitude Survey analysis.
    Duhig Berry—PROMPT Training.
    EECS and Partners—Energy Efficiency and Maintenance.
    Eosys—Single Terminal Access Project.
    Falkman Communications Limited—Examination of ES internal communications.
    Frere Cholmely—Solicitors Service for Pilot Scheme.
    Full Employment UK—Consultations with the over 50s.
    HUSAT—Human involvement in computer technology.
    Instruction Set—Network Study Evaluation.
    Interact—Advice on office systems.
    James Lang Wooton—Advice on running Estate Surveying Pilot Scheme.
    Kinsley Lord—Performance Information Project.
    468
    Learmonth and Burchett Systems plc—Support on minicomputer Management replacement system. Scoping Study for PROMPT3. Implementation of PROMPT3.
    Lloyd Northover—Design Guide Corporate.
    National Computing Centre Limited—Critical systems training consultancy.
    Nexus Connection—LAN trials.
    NML Presentations Limited—ES Agency Launch.
    OPC—Work on Employers Census.
    PA Consulting Group—Evaluation of office automation pilot. Information systems strategy. Review of GPU needs on relocation. Single Terminal Access Project. Data Management/IT Strategy.
    Pergamon Infotech—Prototype guides for NUBS2. Small systems development.
    Rogers Chapman—Estate Surveying Pilot Scheme (London & SE Region).
    Rosalie Silverstone—Evaluation of reconnaisance visits.
    Sapphire—Small systems development.
    SBS Alveus—BRPS1 Development.
    SCPR—Evaluation of Restart. Evaluation of Jobstart. Restart Cohort Study.
    Softlab Limited—IT security study.
    Software Sciences—Small systems development.
    Sphynx—Small systems development.
    Support and Training Services Limited—Testing workshop support.
    Timberlake Clarke Limited—Data Envelope Analysis in the ES.
    Touche Ross—Advice on forecasting workloads in Central Pay Office Computer management.
    Yale Data Computer Consultants—Extraction package study on statistical system. Facilities management study. Small systems development.

  SCOTLAND

    Complaints
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report for each of the last 10 years (a) the number of complaints made against his Department to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, (b) the number of complaints upheld and (c) the action he took on (b).

    Mr. Rifkind
    The number of complaints(a) made and (b) upheld for the last 10 years is as follows:

    (a) Complaints made

    (b) Complaints upheld

    1989–90

    1—

    1—

    1988–89

    17

    nil

    1987–88

    12

    nil

    1986–87

    18

    nil

    1985–86

    8

    nil

    1984–85

    10

    2

    1983–84

    15

    2

    1982–83

    13

    2

    469

    (a) Complaints made

    (b) Complaints upheld

    1981–82

    14

    1

    1980–81

    17

    4

    General Register Office (Scotland)

    Nil except:

    1983–84

    2

    nil

    Scottish Courts Administration

    Nil except:

    1988–89

    1

    nil

    1 Figures not available.

    When the Parliamentary Commissioner upholds a complaint it is departmental practice to provide an appropriate remedy.

    Gun Clubs
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give details of the number of licensed gun clubs in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if he will list all registered gun clubs in Scotland.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    There are currently 271 approved gun clubs in Scotland. I will write to the hon. Member with a list of the approved clubs and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Any rifle or pistol club can apply to become an approved club. Before granting approval my right hon. and learned Friend requires to be satisfied, among other things, that the club is bona fide and has a proper constitution, that the principal officers are responsible persons, that the security arrangements for the storage of club firearms and ammunition are satisfactory, and also that a probationary period of at least six months' duration

    Body

    Position

    Remuneration

    Crofters Commission

    Chairman

    c

    Highlands and Islands Development Board

    Chairman

    f

    Deputy Chairman

    e

    2 Members

    e

    Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland

    Member

    b

    Member

    e

    Member

    f

    North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board

    Chairman

    d

    Chief Executive

    f

    Scottish Dental Practice Board

    Chairman

    c

    Scottish Development Agency

    Chairman

    c

    Chief Executive

    f

    Scottish Homes

    Chairman

    b

    Chief Executive

    e

    Scottish Legal Aid Board

    chairman

    a

    Scottish Tourist Board

    Chairman

    d

    Scottish Transport Group

    Chairman

    f

    South of Scotland Electricity Board

    Chairman

    f

    Deputy Chairman

    f

    470
    applies in respect to new members during which the probationary member is given a course of regular instruction on the safe handling and use of firearms.

    Where approval is granted, the club may obtain a firearm certificate to purchase or acquire firearms and ammunition for the use of club members in, or in connection with, target practice. Club members do not require personal firearms certificates in these circumstances.

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced in reply to a question on 23 January from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), at columns 592–93, new and stricter conditions relating to membership of approved gun clubs covering such issues as probationary and novice members, day membership and guest days. That reply made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend would adopt the same policy for approval of gun clubs in Scotland.

    Appointments
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the appointments he has made annually since 1979 where the remuneration for duties was in the ranges(a) £20,000 to £25,000, (b) £25,000 to £30,000, (c) £30,000 to £35,000, (d) 35,000 to £40,000 (e) £40,000 to £50,000 and (f) above £50,000 per annum.

    Mr. Rifkind
    Information about appointments made in each year is not consistently available in the form requested. Listed in the table are the current appointments made at the requested salary levels. The Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" produced annually gives for each Government Department details of current appointments, including remuneration, as at 1 July each year.

    In addition, I make some appointments jointly with other Secretaries of State.

    Hospitals, Clydesdale
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will visit Birkwood hospital in Lesmahagow to speak to the staff and patients about their concern about the future of the hospital; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if he will visit Law hospital in the Clydesdale constituency to discuss the future of the hospital with patients, members of staff and community groups.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    I have no immediate plans to visit either hospital. Developments there are a matter for Lanarkshire health board in the first instance and it is in touch with the views of the patients, staff and community groups.

    Gun Controls
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the Strathclyde police force on its demands for stricter gun controls.
    472
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any recent representations from Strathclyde police about gun controls.

    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from each of the Scottish chief constables on the need to have stricter gun controls.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    My right hon. and learned Friend has had no recent representations from any of the chief constables.

    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Police Federation to discuss gun control.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    My right hon. and learned Friend and I last met representatives of the Scottish Police Federation on 8 February. The subject of gun controls was not raised.

    Crime
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources he will give to the Scottish police authorities to enable them to combat the increases in violent crime and drug-related crimes.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The provision of resources to police forces is in the first instance a matter for police authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend stands ready to pay police grant on authorities' net approved expenditure on the police service. The level of police grant was increased from 50 to 51 per cent. on 1 April 1986 in recognition of the additional demands being made on the police, including the tackling of violent crime and drug-related crimes.

    Speech Therapy
    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill of 26 March, what assessment he has made of the effect of shortages in cover for maternity leave taken by speech therapists in Scotland; what information he has available on the average waiting time for children with speech difficulties(a) in Scotland as a whole and (b) on a regional or sub-regional level; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    No central assessment of cover for maternity leave has been made. No information is available centrally about average waiting times for speech therapy treatment.

    Wildlife Protection
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking for the protection of the capercaillie.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The capercaillie is presently listed in part 1 of schedule 2 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and may be killed or taken only outside the closed season, that is, between 1 October and 31 January. In view of the decline in numbers of capercaillie, I have recently written to a wide range of interests proposing that a statutory ban on their shooting should be introduced from 1 October 1990. Under my proposals, the ban would be reviewed annually, following consultation. A copy of my consultation letter has been placed in the Library.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the accounting system in the Scottish Office indicated that £4 million was available to fund poll tax ex gratia payments; and from which spending head this money came.

    Mr. Rifkind
    This finance will be provided as part of the normal process of managing the resources available to me in the course of 1990–91.

    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with Mr. Michael Hirst on the spending head from which he has found £4 million on the Scottish Office budget to finance additional poll tax ex gratia payments.
    474
    Mr. Rifkind
    None.

    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the accounting system in the Scottish Office has now identified any further savings over and above the £4 million allocated to poll tax ex gratia payments; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Rifkind
    It is too early to identify the full extent of the changes in requirements for specific spending programmes which may occur during the financial year.

    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will prepare a table illustrating the impact, in each islands and district council area, of a system which combines local income tax with capital value-based domestic rates, making the same assumptions as those used by the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) in respect of a similar table prepared for English local authority areas in a written answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on 6 November 1989,Official Report, column 415.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The table provided in the answer of 6 November 1989 referred to in the hon. Member's question was prepared on the assumption that English local authorities would budget for 1990–91 in line with their standard spending assessments, the Scottish equivalent of which is grant-aided expenditure (GAE) figures.

    As it is now clear that some Scottish authorities have budgeted to spend below their GAE figure and others above it, I do not think I can justify committing the substantial resources needed to producing a table which would clearly be of no practical significance.

    Court Reporting
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the function of shorthand writing in Scottish courts has been put out to tender.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Those shorthand writing services in the Scottish courts provided under Government contract have been put out to tender, and contracts awarded from 1 April 1990.

    Sport
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sports properties in the category of(a) stadia, (b) playing fields, (c) club houses and (d) sports grounds there are in Scotland.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    [holding answer 30 March 1990]: This information is not held centrally.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the measures he is carrying out to encourage sporting activities of(a) secondary and (b) higher education students in Scotland.

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 30 March 1990]: Further action is required to reverse the present decline in school-aged team sport. The report of the Scottish Sports Council's school-aged team sport inquiry group made a number of welcome recommendations on which views are currently being sought. Participation in sport is also to be encouraged among post-school students. This is primarily a matter for the governing bodies of the institutions concerned.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Construction Works
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding progress on construction of the two-stream nuclear refitting and refuelling complex at Rosyth.

    Mr. Chope
    Works currently in construction are of a preparatory nature and are on programme.

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current state of progress of Cementation Construction Ltd. in meeting acceptance, availability and safety standards for the construction of the shiplift at Faslane.

    Mr. Chope
    Acceptance of the shiplift depends upon stringent availability and safety standards being met to the satisfaction of the nuclear safety and quality assurance authorities at all stages of the contract. This is being done.

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current state of progress of construction of the floating jetty at Faslane.

    Mr. Chope
    The timetable is very tight, but construction is still on programme to meet the requirements of Trident.

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what extensions of time have been awarded by the Property Services Agency to Cementation Construction on the contract for the shiplift at the submarine operating base at Faslane;

    (2) what extensions of time have been awarded by the Property Services Agency to Tarmac Construction on the following contracts at the submarine operating base at Faslane: (a) asbestos decontamination and (b) north and south fences;

    (3) what extensions of time have been granted by the Property Services Agency to Tarmac Construction on the contracts at RNAD Coulport for (a) jetty shore area and associated road, (b) explosives area and (c) advanced works.

    Mr. Chope
    Any extensions of time granted to the contractors have been in accordance with the terms and conditions of their contracts. Details of actual extensions of time are commercial and confidential.

    Walkers and Climbers
    Dr. Kim Howells
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many walkers and climbers are estimated to have spent time on the paths, hillsides and crags of(a) the Brecon Beacons national park, (b) the Snowdonia national park, and (c) National Trust coastlines of Pembrokeshire and the Gower in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

    Mr. Roberts
    [holding answer 27 March 1990]: I have been asked to reply. The information requested is not collected.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate for each district council in Lancashire the levels of local income tax that would result in order to maintain the revenue raised by the community charge in 1990–91.
    476
    Mr. Chope
    The information requested is not available.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government, in deciding to replace rates by the poll tax, took into account the administrative cost; and if he will publish in the Official Report the latest estimate of the cost of administering the poll tax and rates as a percentage of the revenue yield to one place of decimals.

    Mr. Chope
    Administrative costs were taken into account in introducing the new arrangements. The latest estimate of the cost of administering the community charge and the national non-domestic rates as a percentage of the revenue yield is 1·9 per cent.

    Mr. Gould
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, in calculating Brighton's standard spending assessment, what account was taken of(a) community charge collection costs, (b) inflation and (c) the population increase between 1989–90 and 1990–91.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    The standard spending assessment (SSA) for Brighton was calculated in the same way as that for all other authorities. The method of calculation is set out in section 3 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), which has been approved by the House. Community charge collection costs are included in the all other services block, the calculation of which is described in part VI of annex A to the report. SSAs are scaled to the control totals shown in annex B to the report (net total standard spending). These, together with specific grants, amount to total standard spending of £32·8 billion, an increase of 11 per cent. over the equivalent figure for 1989–90. Population assumptions were based on the most recent estimates from the Registrar General for England and Wales.

    Mr. Gould
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dagenham of 22 February on the difference between Brighton council's grant-related expenditure for 1989–90 and its standard spending assessment for 1990–91, whether he will publish a table in the Official Report giving this figure for all councils.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    I have today placed a table in the Library showing the information requested.

    Mr. Gould
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the reasons for the net reduction in real terms in Government grant paid to Brighton council.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    External finance to local authorities in 1990–91 is designed to enable authorities to set a community charge of about £278 (subject to the safety net) if they spend at the level of their standard spending assessments (SSAs). This is as true for Brighton as it is for all other local authorities. Previous levels of grant are not one of the factors used in calculating SSAs, and there is no reason why grant calculated under the new system should bear any specific relationship to grant under the old. What is important is the level of expenditure which will enable an authority to provide a standard level of service. It is worth noting, however, that under the new system (which is based on population rather than rateable values) Brighton has to bear a smaller percentage of the county precept, and to that extent its grant requirement is less.
    477
    Mr. Gould
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would Brighton's grant-related expenditure for 1989–90 have been had it been calculated on his Department's present criteria.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    It is not possible to calculate the figure requested. Many of the necessary factors are either not available in the form required, or do not exist.

    Ballykelly (Fraud)
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to the answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 20 March, when the possibility of a fraud squad operating at Ballykelly was brought to the notice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; when it began its investigations; when he expects those investigations to be completed; when he was informed of the police investigation; and whether any investigations were carried out by the military police or any other military body before the Royal Ulster Constabulary was informed of possible fraud.

    Mr. Chope
    I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 20 March 1990 at column 600.

    Council Housing
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the relative state of repair of council housing(a) currently and (b) in 1980.

    Mr. Chope
    Assessments of the state of repair of council housing currently and in 1980 are not available. Estimates provided by the quinquennial English house condition survey show 76,000 local authority and new town dwellings in serious disrepair in 1981 and 85,000 in 1986. These figures represent 1·5 per cent. and 1·9 per cent. of the local authority and new town stock in these years.

    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the Government's new financial regime for local authority housing.

    Mr. Michael Spicer
    No fundamental review is necessary. We are committed however to developing certain aspects of the policy further; we will, for example, consult on proposals to define more closely the items in the housing revenue account (HRA) and to target HRA subsidy on management and maintenance needs. We shall also follow the customary practice with a new policy of evaluating its effect over the first few years.

    Grants, St. Helens
    Mr. Butler
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the totals of(a) urban development grant and (b) derelict land grants in the borough of St. Helens in each of the last five years.

    Mr. Moynihan
    No project in St. Helens had received an urban development grant (UDG) by the time of the cessation of UDG in May 1988. Under the successor to UDG, city grant, I approved a grant of £6·33 million in October 1989 for a scheme to reclaim a derelict and contaminated site for a new housing development close to the town centre. This is the largest city grant so far awarded.
    478
    The totals of derelict land grant are as follows:

    £ million

    1984–85

    0·455

    1985–86

    0·694

    1986–87

    0·007

    1987–88

    0·498

    1988–89

    0·405

    Sewage
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those viruses that are not destroyed by passing through a sewage treatment works.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    The best estimates that we have are that primary treatment removes up to 50 per cent. of viruses and that secondary treatment removes up to 99 per cent. of viruses from sewage effluent.

    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions the new EEC draft directive on waste water contains on discharges in sewer outfalls in coastal waters within 5 km of bathing beaches.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    The EC proposed municipal waste water treatment directive generally requires secondary treatment of sewage prior to discharge, but primary treatment may suffice for coastal discharges where it can be shown that there is no adverse environmental effect. These requirements are in line with my right hon. Friend's statement on sewage treatment policy on 5 March at column 452. A copy of the explanatory memorandum on the municipal waste water directive is in the Library.

    Planning
    Sir Gerard Vaughan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each instance when a Secretary of State has re-examined a planning decision once granted as the result of local public opposition, other than as the result of a court decision.

    Mr. Michael Spicer
    Once my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued a decision on a planning application or appeal, his jurisdiction ends. He can re-determine a planning decision taken by himself only if that decision is quashed by the courts. The Secretary of State has powers to revoke a planning permission under section 276 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. My rt. hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), then Minister for Housing and Planning, set out the Government's policy on revocation in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on 20 December 1989 at column 329.

    Mr Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response his Department has received on the draft planning policy guidance consultation on (i) housing, (ii) regional guidance and structure plans and (iii) the countryside and the rural economy.

    Mr. Moynihan
    Several hundred responses have been received to each of these draft guidance notes. Comments are now being analysed, and final versions of the notes will be issued in the spring or early summer.

    Efficiency Scrutiny
    Mr. Carrington
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the efficiency scrutiny of the control of administrative costs of sponsored bodies; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Chris Patten
    I am today publishing the report of this efficiency scrutiny into administrative costs of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and my Department's response to it. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House and are being sent to the NDPBs concerned.

    This scrutiny was set up to look into current systems of contol over staffing and administrative costs in NDPBs, and to bring forward proposals which would enable more flexible and efficient use of administrative resources by NDPBs whilst still retaining an appropriate degree of departmental control.

    The scrutiny's main finding, which the Department accepts, is that direct controls on manpower and administrative expenditure should be removed in favour of a system of strategic control, provided that the body's internal control mechanisms are sufficient to ensure that such strategic control would be effective. A single cash ceiling on administrative running costs should be introduced and rolled forward each year. This will provide NDPBs with an opportunity for more freedom to manage their own affairs and scope for greater administrative efficiency.

    The action plan in the Department's response will be implemented primarily in the current round of financial management and policy reviews of NDPBs over the next three years.

    Urban programme schemes where at least 30 per cent. of the benefits of the project will go to ethnic minority groups

    Name of group

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–90

    £000s

    £000s

    £000s

    £000s

    Ujima Housing Association (3 projects)

    100·0

    43·4

    13·0

    35·0

    Multi-racial Society for Asian Children

    37·0

    39·0

    39·0

    41·0

    Factory Community Centre—Education Project

    22·0

    99·0

    n/a

    15·0

    Multi-ethnic Communication-Befriending project

    27·5

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Muslim Welfare Centre

    42·0

    5·5

    6·0

    6·0

    Bangladesh Womens Association

    39·0

    30·5

    n/a

    34·0

    Union of Turkish Workers

    33·0

    2·0

    n/a

    n/a

    Unity Association (Arts and Music project)

    40·0

    n/a

    54·0

    56·0

    West Indians Community Association

    40·0

    44·5

    46·0

    n/a

    Turkish Education Group

    45·0

    25·0

    25·0

    n/a

    Project Fullemploy—New Technology

    20·0

    32·0

    n/a

    n/a

    Project Fullemploy—Minority Business Advice

    5·8

    32·0

    n/a

    n/a

    Day Centre for the Greek Cypriot Elderly

    67·0

    10·0

    n/a

    n/a

    Islington People's Rights (Independent Welfare Rights Agency)

    1·0

    n/a

    n/a

    21·8

    Nafsiyat al atma (Inter-cultural therapy centre)

    41·5

    43·5

    n/a

    n/a

    Ghana Union Printing Project

    13·0

    14·0

    42·0

    38·5

    Community of Refugees from Vietnam Group

    26·1

    31·0

    32·0

    n/a

    Anglo-Akanthou Community Association

    n/a

    31·5

    33·0

    (plus building scheme shared with Islington African project)

    (224·0)

    (19·0)

    Asian Resource Centre

    n/a

    41·0

    n/a

    n/a

    Islington Muslim Association

    32·0

    91·0

    5·0

    n/a

    Iscinin Sesi (Turkish Community) Library

    34·0

    36·0

    38·0

    n/a

    Housing Improvement Programme (Liverpool)
    Mr. Loyden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the amount of Liverpool city council's bid for its housing improvement programme;

    (2) what was the amount of the Liverpool city council's allocation of housing improvement grant.

    Mr. Chope
    [holding answer 27 March 1990]: If the hon. Member intended to refer to the housing investment programme, the answer is that the bid was for £155·077 million and the allocation was £33·687 million—the third highest in the country.

    Voluntary Organisations, Islington
    Mr. Chris Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those voluntary organisations in the London borough of Islington serving the needs of the ethnic minority communities which have been agreed by his Department in the past four years for funding under partnership arrangements; and if he will indicate the amount of Government contribution in each case.

    Mr. Moynihan
    [holding answer 26 March 1990] : Voluntary organisations play a major role in the delivery of urban programme and partnership objectives, especially for ethnic minorities, one of the Department's target groups for urban programme support. Urban programmes are critically examined before being approved by my Department. The local authority is required both to monitor the performance and output of all approved projects and to evaluate each project in detail at least once during its lifetime.

    The following is the information requested showing the full cost of support through the Islington partnership urban programme. The Government's contribution is 75 per cent. of these amounts. Of the 40 schemes listed 22 are being supported in the financial year 1989–90.
    481

    Name of group

    1986–87

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–90

    £000s

    £000s

    £000s

    £000s

    Hi-Fashion Music Co-operative

    35·0

    36·5

    49·0

    n/a

    Patidar Samaj (National Association for the Gujerati community)

    37·0

    10·5

    11·0

    n/a

    North London Bengali Association

    5·7

    6·0

    16·0

    n/a

    Islington Chinese Group Chinese Centre

    14·5

    44·5

    26·0

    27·0

    Kokayi Supplementary School (African and West Indian community)

    38·5

    56·0

    72·5

    18·0

    St. Gabriels Youth Club-Endeavour project

    27·5

    12·0

    n/a

    n/a

    MENCAP—Beacon Youth Club

    n/a

    74·0

    n/a

    n/a

    Mayville Youth Club Music Workshop

    n/a

    10·0

    11·0

    11·5

    Holloway Youth Workshops Limited

    n/a

    88·0

    n/a

    19·0

    Rockinghorse Playgroup

    n/a

    12·0

    n/a

    n/a

    North London Bangladesh Welfare Association

    13·0

    7·0

    n/a

    n/a

    Holloway Neighbourhood Group (Mayton Street Community and Youth Centre

    n/a

    44·0

    49·5

    39·0

    The Angel Project Inner City Action on Drugs

    16·0

    17·0

    32·0

    33·8

    SCOPE Christian Action

    4·0

    5·0

    5·5

    5·5

    Anglo-Hellenic Association

    n/a

    20·0

    24·0

    32·5

    Pharos Association (Employment Worker)

    n/a

    n/a

    6·0

    9·0

    Islington Project—Youth Worker with Greek girls

    n/a

    12·5

    14·0

    14·7

    Pakistan Womens Welfare Association

    21·5

    12·5

    12·0

    12·5

    Newington Green Black Pensioners (previously Mildmay Grove Pensioners)

    n/a

    4·5

    5·0

    5·0

    Finsbury Park Community Trust (Asian Women's Employment Project)

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    12·0

    Totals

    878·6

    1,122·9

    890·5

    505·8

    Source: London Borough of Islington. Urban Programme Project Information forms.

    Shopping Centre, Trafford Park
    Mr. Churchill
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to announce his decision in respect of the proposed regional shopping centre at Dumplington Circle, Trafford park; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Moynihan
    [holding answer 20 March 1990]: No. Before reaching a final decision my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must fully consider the traffic implications of this scheme, and other retail proposals, now before him. He cannot at this stage express any view about the likely outcome.

    EC Environmental Matters
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals for environmental directives he has received from Directorate General XI on(a) environmental protection and pollution, (b) consumer protection from contamination and (c) nuclear safety since 1 January.

    Mr. Trippier
    Proposals from the European Commission for Council directives are deposited in Parliament. The following environmental proposals have been deposited since 1 January:4353/90 Proposals for a Council directive amending for the 11th time directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations.
    8065/88 Amendment to a proposal for a Council decision authorising the Commission to negotiate and
    482
    approve on behalf of the Community certain measures as part of the implementation of international agreements of a regional nature relating to environmental protection to which the Community is a contracting party.
    4467/90 Proposals for a Council directive amending for the seventh time directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances.
    4733/90 Amendment of the proposal for a Council directive concerning the protection of fresh, coastal and marine waters against pollution caused by nitrates from diffuse sources.
    4704/90 Proposal for a Council directive amending directive 70/220/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles.
    4822/90 Proposal for a Council directive amending directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (Article 12).

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports on environmental matters produced by the European Parliament he has received since 1 January; and what responses he has made to them.

    Mr. Trippier
    The European Parliament has delivered opinions to the Council of Ministers on the following environmental matters since 1 January:Proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European environment monitoring and information network.
    Proposal for a Council decision amending a Council decision (85/338/EEC) in order to provide for the continuation of the Commission work programme concerning an experimental project for gathering,

    483
    co-ordinating and ensuring the consistency of information on the state of the environment and natural resources in the Community. (CORINE)
    Proposal for a Council directive on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms.
    Proposal for a Council directive on the deliberate release of genetically modified micro-organisms.
    In addition, the Parliament has delivered a report on a programme of regional actions to be initiated by the Commission on the subject of the environment. (ENVIREG).

    Opinions and reports delivered by the Parliament are taken into account in discussions in the Council of Ministers.

    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of European Council decision 85/338/EEC, the CORINE programme on data collection on the state of the environment in the European Community; and what support was afforded to CORINE by the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Trippier
    Following the European Council decision (85/338/EEC), the CORINE experimental project for gathering, co-ordinating and ensuring consistency of information on the state of the environment and natural resources in the Community was set up. The project was due to run for four years, but the Environment Council agreed on 22 March 1990 to extend it for a further two years to consolidate the progress made and to prepare for the transfer of the work to the proposed European Environment Agency. An interim report on the progress of the project was published in 1988.

    United Kingdom consultants have played a leading role in developing the project, both in terms of the required computerised system and in individual topic areas. Officials from the Department of the Environment are members of a committee of national experts which oversees and steers the project.

    Rainham Marshes
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the radioactive contamination of Rainham marshes in Essex.

    Mr. Trippier
    Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has investigated the suggestion that radioactive waste was disposed of in Rainham marshes in the early 1960s. Any disposals before the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 came into force on 1 December 1963 would not have required authorisation under the Act. There is no record of any subsequent authorised disposals.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Income Support
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the arrangements for income support payments to persons in residential homes.

    Mr. Newton
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) earlier today.
    484
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review income support regulations as they affect elderly people seeking to enter nursing or rest homes.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) earlier today.

    Residential Homes
    Mr. Stern
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list showing the average proportion of private sector nursing home costs that can be met by his Department in the major cities of the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Newton
    As I informed the House on 28 March, I accept the need for more and better information about the true costs of running residential care and nursing homes and I hope to approve the commissioning of the necessary research in the near future. Meanwhile, I have to say that the information sought by my hon. Friend is not available.

    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what specific items in his Department's budget for 1990–91 will be reduced; and what is the saving on each, in order to fund the extra £25 million he has made available to meet increased income support limits for residential and nursing homes.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    No specific new action to make reductions is required. Review of current evidence on actual expenditure, and of the effectiveness of existing control mechanisms, shows that it will be possible to accommodate with the Department's planned total expenditure of £55·6 billion in 1990–91 the £22 million expenditure on increased limits which will not be met from the reserve.

    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the reply of 26 March,Official Report, column 77, how many of his Department's staff have, since 1979, been given permission exceptionally to hold a financial interest in private residential or nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Authority to deal with requests for permission to take up private activities or occupations is delegated to local management. Records are not held centrally.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Dickens
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the success rate of detecting those making fake claims for benefit and still working within the black economy; how many officers are deployed nationwide on these duties; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    We do not record as a separate category the number of successful fraud investigations against claimants working in the black economy. However, I can say that in 1988–89, the total of successful social security benefit fraud investigations was 238,255, the majority of which involved claimants who were concealing their employment. That effort produced estimated benefit savings of £343 million which reflects the commitment of
    485
    both this Department and the Department of Employment to maintain a vigorous campaign against those who defraud the social security system.

    The number of full-time equivalent posts engaged in the investigation of benefit fraud in both Departments in 1988–89 was 4,310.

    For 1990–91 DSS has set an overall benefit savings target of £320 million against £280 million for the current year. DE has set an investment return target of £3·00 to£3·40 benefit savings for each £1 expended on fraud investigations.

    Over-80s
    Mr. Atkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received any recent representations about the 25p increase in the state pension for the over-80s; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    In the last 12 months 164 representations have been received on the subject of the age addition to retirement pensions for over-80s.

    "The Way Ahead"
    Mr. Favell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will benefit from the proposals set out in "The Way Ahead".

    Mr. Scott
    The proposals set out in "The Way Ahead" (Cm 917) and the interim measures that we announced in October 1989 will give extra help to an estimated 850,000 people.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Rees
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current percentage uptake of child benefit.

    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current percentage uptake of child benefit.

    Mr. Tony Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current percentage uptake of child benefit.

    Mr. Fisher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current percentage uptake of child benefit.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Virtually 100 per cent.

    Mr. Allen McKay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the increase in child benefit since 1987.

    Mr. Jim Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the increase in child benefit since 1987.

    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the increase in child benefit since 1987.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    We have, however, since then devoted considerable extra resources totalling some £350 million in real terms to the least well-off families—those on income support and family credit—who do not gain from 486
    an increase in child benefit of itself and who are now therefore better off than they would have been if child benefit had been uprated.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the uprating of child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

    Ms. Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the uprating of child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the uprating of child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) earlier today.

    Mr. Pendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current value of child benefit if it had been uprated in line with inflation over the last three years.

    Mr. Illsley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current value of child benefit if it had been uprated in line with inflation over the last three years.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) earlier today.

    Mr. Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the application of the criteria used to assess potential changes in benefits policy to the decision to freeze child benefit in the last financial year.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The considerations which led my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his decision not to increase child benefit from April 1990 were fully explained by him in his statement to the House on 25 October 1989 at columns 841–45.

    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the value of child benefit at 1979 prices.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) on 12 December 1989 at columns 583-84.

    Benefits, Coventry and Warwickshire
    Mr. Nellist
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the latest figures of how many people are dependent on(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit, broken down into claimants, dependants and children in his Department's offices in Coventry and Warwickshire.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    [holding answer 5 March 1990]: The available information is listed in the table. The figures for income support show the number of claimants on 30 November 1989. Data are derived from a 100 per cent. count of cases in action which include a number where

    487
    benefit payments have ceased but other action is continuing. The figures for housing benefit show the total number in receipt of housing benefit on 30 November 1989. The family credit figures are based on those living in the areas covered by the local social security offices at the time their award was made on 23 February 1990. All of these figures include those who had made a claim where the award has yet to be made.

    No figures are available for dependants or children and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Income support

    Family credit

    Housing benefit2

    Coventry

    32,830

    1,534

    37,249

    Warwickshire1

    24,207

    1,802

    37,155

    1 Excluding the Coventry total.

    2 Source is housing benefit management information system—returns from local authorities.

    One-parent Families
    Mr. Barry Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest figure for the number of lone-parent families in receipt of income support; and how many such families were receiving supplementary benefit five years ago.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The latest date for which information is available is May 1988 when there were 722,000 lone-parent families in receipt of income support. In 1983 the number of lone parents receiving supplementary benefit was 471,000.

    Notes:

    1. Source—Annual Statistical Enquiries for 1983 and 1988.

    2. The figures do not include prisoners' partners.

    Advertising Costs
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the cost of advertising and explaining the community charge rebate.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 5 March at column 522. Additionally, a campaign will be launched in the national press shortly to publicise the budget changes to the upper capital limits for all the income-related benefits.

    Occupational Pension Schemes
    Mr. French
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to restrict self-investment by occupational pension schemes.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The Social Security Bill contains a power to restrict occupational pensions investing in employer-related investments—a practice which we believe has a potential for conflicts of interest. We are arranging a survey to provide up-to-date information on the extent of self-investment to guide us in the regulations which we hope to introduce as soon as practicable after Royal Assent.

    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers the pension ombudsman will have to resolve any grievances held by members of occupational pension schemes.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    It is intended that the pensions ombudsman should have extensive powers to help resolve 488
    grievances brought to him by members of occupational personal pension schemes. He will be able to investigate and determine both complaints about alleged maladministration and disputes about fact or law.

    The pensions ombudsman will have similar powers to those of the county court in England and Wales; and of the sheriff court in Scotland. He will be able to examine witnesses and require the production of documents, and he will issue a written statement of his determination and the reasons for it to those concerned. His determinations will be binding on the parties involved, and will be enforceable in a county or sheriff court.

    Benefits (Long-term Sick and Disabled)
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average annual real increase in spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people over the period(a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to date; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Scott
    The average annual real increase, at 1989–90 prices, was as follows:

    £ million

    (a) 1974–75 to 1978–79

    220

    (b) 1978–79 to 1988–89

    370

    Social Fund
    Mr. Janner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his review of guidance to local offices concerning budget restrictions on social fund loans.

    Mr. Scott
    I refer the hon. and learned Member to my statement of 26 March at columns 21-40. A copy of the revised guidance is in the Library.

    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for grants and loans from the social fund are approved on review after initial rejection.

    Mr. Scott
    The information requested is contained in the national summary statistics which are placed in the Library monthly.

    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the repayments of loans to the social fund are available in full for the making of further loans or grants.

    Mr. Scott
    Yes, but allocations to budgets remain a matter for judgment as appropriate.

    Mr. McLeish
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was for the Leven, Dunfermline, Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy social security offices the proportion of income support claimants repaying social fund budget and crisis loans for each quarter between January and December 1989.

    Mr. Scott
    [holding answer 26 March 1990]: Information about the local income support caseload is collected on a quarterly basis and the percentage of loans being repaid on the last day of each quarter is shown in the table.

    489

    1989

    Budget Loans per cent.

    Crisis Loans per cent.

    Leven

    February

    8·0

    1·3

    May

    9·3

    1·6

    August

    10·0

    1·3

    November

    10·7

    1·4

    Dunfermline

    February

    8·7

    2·7

    May

    10·4

    3·9

    August

    10·4

    3·3

    November

    11·5

    3·7

    Cowdenbeath

    February

    8·8

    2·7

    May

    10·3

    3·4

    August

    10·2

    2·9

    November

    9·8

    2·5

    Kirkcaldy

    February

    8·8

    1·0

    May

    10·3

    1·2

    August

    10·7

    1·3

    November

    11·7

    1·4

    Pensioners
    Mr. Roger King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are receiving income from savings or occupational pensions.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    In 1987, 73 per cent. of pensioners received income from savings and 52 per cent. of pensioners had an occupational pension. This compares very favourably with 1979 when the corresponding figures were 62 per cent. and 41 per cent.

    Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

    Mr. Speller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the increase in pensioners' average net incomes for(a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to date.

    Mr. Dunn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' average net incomes have increased since 1979.

    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures he has for the increase in pensioners' incomes from savings since 1979.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Between 1974 and 1979, pensioners' average total net incomes rose by 3 per cent. in real terms. Recently available figures show a rise between 1979 and 1987 of over 31 per cent. in real terms. The same figures also show that pensioners' average income from savings more than doubled over the same period.

    Pensions
    Mr. McFall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to restore the link between the level of pensions and the higher of the increases in the retail prices index and earnings.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    We have no plans to do so. The link between retirement pension and increases in earnings is not the key factor in improving pensioners' incomes. What matters most to pensioners is their total income; between 1979 and 1987 pensioners' average total net income increased by more than 31 per cent. in real terms.
    490
    Mr. Murphy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that the requirement for occupational pensions schemes to revalue pensions in payment is applied in the same way to money purchase schemes and personal pension schemes.

    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that the requirement for occupational pensions schemes to revalue pensions in payment applies in the same way to money purchase schemes and personal pension schemes.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    My right hon. Friend recently announced our further proposals to protect members of occupational pension schemes. Schemes, except those providing a money purchase benefit, will have to pay annual increases to members for their pension rights which they build up after an appointed Day. Rather different considerations apply in the case of money purchase and personal pension schemes. Their members already have the opportunity to use the proceeds of their investments to choose a pension that increases after retirement. We intend to consider the question of requiring members of such schemes to take any annuity providing pension increases as part of the next review of the terms of contracting-out of the state earnings related pension scheme.

    Mr. Roy Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to index-link pensions with earnings.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 7 March at column 679.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he estimates has been spent in 1990 on advertising(a) personal pensions schemes and (b) the state earnings-related pension.

    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total that has been spent in 1990 on advertising(a) personal pensions schemes and (b) the state earnings-related pension.

    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he estimates has been spent in 1990 on advertising(a) personal pension schemes and (b) the state earnings-related pension.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Nothing has been spent in 1990 on such advertising by the Department of Social Security.

    Mr. Ward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of people who have taken out appropriate personal pensions.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) earlier today.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Pawsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total spending in his Department in 1979, 1983 and 1987 and currently in real terms; and what percentage that is of total Government spending.

    Mr. Scott
    The information requested is in the table.
    491

    Year

    Expenditure (cash)

    Expenditure (1989–90 prices)

    Difference from 1989–90 expenditure

    Total Government spending (cash)

    Percentage of total Government spending

    1979–80

    19,416

    39,119

    13,464

    77,600

    25·0

    1983–84

    35,159

    48,579

    4,004

    120,400

    29·2

    1987–88

    48,769

    55,968

    -3,385

    142,500

    34·2

    1989–90

    52,583

    52,583

    —

    161,900

    32·5

    Note:

    Figures for the years 1979–80 and 1983–84 are based on the old planning total: those for 1987–88 and 1989–90 on the new.

    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure by his Department in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1989–90.

    Mr. Scott
    Total expenditure in 1978–79 was £16,437 million in cash terms, or £38,677 million at 1989–90 prices. Estimated total expenditure for 1989–90 is £52,583 million.

    AIDS
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the adequacy of income support for people with AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    We have received a number of representations on this topic. Almost without exception they refer to a need for people with AIDS or HIV infection to follow a special diet, said to cost £30 or more each week. Although we understand that people with AIDS are often advised to follow a high protein/calorie diet, there is research in the public domain which indicates that such a diet can be devised for little more than half that cost. The healthy eating plan which people with HIV infection are advised to follow is no more than a normal balanced diet.

    Benefits (Disabled People)
    Mr. Andrew Bowden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is proposing to improve social security benefits for people who become disabled after reaching pensionable age.

    Mr. Scott
    Measures introduced in October 1989 targeted £200 million of additional help on less well-off, elderly and disabled pensioners. These changes mean that 2·6 million pensioners will gain, by up to £2·50 a week in the case of single people and £3·50 a week for couples. Provision in the current Social Security Bill will enable pensioners who are terminally ill to receive attendance allowance without having to serve the normal 26-week qualifying period.

    Dr. Twinn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will gain from the improvements in benefits for disabled people which are being introduced this month.

    Mr. Scott
    An estimated 452,000 people are expected to gain from the improvements in benefits for disabled people to be introduced this month.

    Operational Strategy
    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in implementing his Department's operational strategy.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The Department's highly complex £1·7 billion strategy for the computerisation of 492
    the social security benefit payment system is proceeding as planned. The pilot exercise in 23 local offices has been completed and the systems are being introduced nationally office by office. By the end of March 1990, 199 offices had received the departmental central index (DCI) system; 198 the retirement pensions system; and 93 the income support system—out of an eventual target of 440 offices.

    Maintenance Payments
    Mr. Alexander
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that more maintenance is recovered from absent parents.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the Government's progress on ensuring that eligible fathers pay maintenance to their families.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) earlier today.

    Disability Allowance
    Mrs. Rosie Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to abolish the six-month qualifying period for disability allowance; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Scott
    The proposed qualifying period for the new disability allowance which will be introduced in 1992 is three months. If the hon. Member has in mind the six-month qualifying period for attendance allowance, the current Social Security Bill includes provision to remove it for terminally ill people. We do not propose to abolish it for other people. Attendance allowance is targeted at people with long-term attendance needs, and the qualifying period ensures that resources are concentrated on that group.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will increase housing benefit in real terms in the next financial year.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The uprating of housing benefit and community charge benefit personal allowances and premiums takes effect in April 1990 and will take expenditure on those benefits to more than £6·3 billion in the financial year 1990–91. Expenditure on comparable items in the current financial year is estimated at £5·6 billion. In April certain premiums are being increased above the amount required to maintain their value in real terms; these are the family disability, disabled child and lone parent premiums. In October, the lone parent's earnings disregard is to increase from £15 to £25, and a carer's premium is being introduced.
    493
    The recently announced increases in the capital limits, to £16,000 for housing benefit and community charge benefit and to £8,000 for income support and family credit, also take effect from April. The change will benefit up to a quarter of a million people at a new cost for social security benefit estimated at £120 million a year.

    Relocation
    Mr. Donald Thompson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in relocating his Department's staff away from the London area.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 14 November 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) at column 170 in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a substantial amount of the Department's work in London was to be relocated to Leeds. A site for the new headquarters building in Leeds has been identified and we expect that the relocation of posts from London will begin from the end of 1991.

    Incentives to Work
    Mr. David Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made by his Department of the impact of changes in recent years in social security benefit payment on financial incentives to work.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The effects of changes which may affect financial incentives to work are monitored constantly. As indicated in the Government's expenditure plans 1990–91 to 1992–93 (Cmnd 1014, chapter 14, paragraph 35), the impact on incentives is one of the criteria used to assess potential changes in social security benefit policy.

    The Government have made considerable progress on improving financial incentives by alleviating the unemployment trap and eliminating the worst effects of the poverty trap. Far fewer people are now financially better off not working than only a few years ago. It is estimated that of 14 million working heads of households, only about 15,000 would receive more in benefit than they receive in wages from employment. The Government have virtually eliminated the possibility that a person can experience combined tax and national insurance deduction rates of 100 per cent. or more, which means that virtually no one now suffers a reduction in net income as a result of increased earnings. There have been significant increases in the real value of take-home pay through reductions in income tax, increased tax thresholds and restricting of national insurance contributions. Real take-home pay for a married couple with two children on average earnings has increased by 34 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.

    Public Service
    Mr. Butler
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps have been taken to improve his Department's service to the public.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Since the Government reforms were introduced in 1988, the social security system has become simpler for claimants to understand and easier for staff to operate. As a result there have been very real 494
    all-round improvements in standards of service to the public. In particular the average 1989–90 times taken to clear income support claims and callers have improved by 25 per cent. and 24 per cent. respectively when compared with pre-reforms' performance.

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

    Glasgow Social Security Centre
    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the working of the Glasgow social security centre; and what plans he has to extend benefit-processing work away from south-east England.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Monitoring and evaluation of performance at Glasgow indicates that claims for income support are being processed faster and more accurately than before relocation of the work from London.

    There are currently no plans to extend benefit-processing work away from south-east England beyond the 21 London offices already identified for relocation.

    Disabled People (Employment)
    Mr. David Shaw
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the measures he is introducing to make it easier for disabled people to take up employment.

    Mr. Scott
    I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 26 February at column 59.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he has given to those issuing information about entitlement to community charge rebates to those in receipt of income support and housing benefit; what reports he has received about couples not receiving the rebate in cases where one partner applied for housing benefit; what action he is taking to ensure both partners receive rebates; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    Local authorities have statutory responsibility for the administration of community charge benefit and housing benefit. Advice on providing information about entitlement to community charge benefit is issued to local authorities in circulars and in the housing benefit guidance manual. Transitional arrangements were made for local authorities to treat existing claims for housing benefit as claims for community charge benefit and DSS local offices conducted a take on exercise for income support claimants not in receipt of housing benefit. Where a couple claims community charge benefit, one partner is required to make the claim on behalf of both and community charge benefit is awarded accordingly to both partners.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Sims
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the framework document of the Information Technology Services Agency.

    Mr. Newton
    I have placed copies of the framework document and business plan for the Information Technology Services Agency, launched today, in the Libraries of both Houses. I am confident that new arrangements outlined in these documents will introduce greater efficiency in to my Department's computer and telecommunications operations and through this an improved service to the public.

    I will remain accountable to parliament and the public for all aspects of my Department's work, but within the framework of ministerial policy there will be maximum delegation of responsibility for operational matters to the chief executive of the agency.

    War Pensions
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many nuclear test veterans are curretly awaiting determinations by his Department.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I regret that the information is not available, as such claims are not separately recorded.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delays being experienced by Mr. John Hall of 35 Shetland avenue, Leicester, in obtaining a war pension.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    A claim was received from Mr. Hall on 8 October 1989. It is necessary to obtain full details of service and medical history before a claim for a war pension can be considered. The Department's doctors are to examine Mr. Hall's papers this week and he will
    be contacted about his claim soon afterwards.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time it takes to process a war pension application for a nuclear test veteran.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I regret that the information is not available.

    Benefits, Bradford
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are in receipt of(a) family credit, (b) housing benefit and (c) income support in the Bradford area.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The available information is listed in the table. The figures for income support show the number of claimants on 30 November 1989. Data are derived from a 100 per cent. count of cases in action which include a number where benefit payment has ceased but other action is continuing. The figures for housing benefit show the total number in receipt of housing benefit on 30 November 1989. The family credit figures are based on those living in the areas covered by the local social security offices at the time their award was made on 23 February 1990. All of these figures exclude those who had made a claim where the award was yet to be made.
    496
    No figures are available for dependants or children and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Income support

    Housing benefit1

    Family credit

    44,566

    48,763

    4,780

    1 Source is housing benefit management information systerm— returns from local authority.

    Cost Savings
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department achieved the target of a 5 per cent. saving in purchasing costs in 1988–89 through use of the central unit on purchasing.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The DHSS secured value for money improvements in purchasing of almost £30 million in 1988–89. This represented 4 per cent. of purchasing spend.

    Occupational Pension Rights
    Mr. Channon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are being taken to deal with the question of occupational pension rights on divorce. ting-

    Mr. Andrew Bowden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to bring forward legislation on occupational pension rights on divorce.

    Mr. Scott
    It is for employers to determine normally following consultation with their employees, what benefits are provided by an occupational pension scheme and to whom they are payable. Except where scheme
    benefits are payable as a condition for the scheme to be used for contracting out of the state earnings-related benefit scheme there is no requirement on schemes to provide any specific benefit whether on divorce or otherwise.

    Mr. Andrew Bowden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how occupational pension rights are transferred on divorce.

    Mr. Scott
    Transfers of pension rights may take place when a member leaves a pension scheme and wishes to put his or her pension rights into a new scheme. Any member of an occupational pension scheme who has completed two years' pensionable service in the scheme and whose service terminated at least one year before the scheme's normal pension age, has the statutory right to ask the scheme trustees or manager to transfer the cash equivalent of his pension rights, to acquire rights in another occupational scheme or a personal pension scheme, or to purchase one or more annuities from one or more insurance companies. This right exists on divorce or at any other time.

    The question of assigning pension rights between former spouses after a divorce is a matter for the individuals concerned, subject to restrictions in social security and income tax legislation.

    Mr. Andrew Bowden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the issue of occupational pension rights on divorce.

    Mr. Scott
    We have from time to time received letters from members of the public on the issue.

    Complaints
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report for each of the last 10 years (a) the number of complaints made against his Department to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, (b) the number of complaints upheld and (c) the action he took on (b).

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    The information required is provided in the table.

    Complaints against Department of (Health and) Social Security

    (a) Complaints made1

    (b) Complaints upheld1

    1989

    2—

    2—

    1988

    220

    33

    1987

    200

    40

    1986

    242

    48

    1985

    231

    42

    1984

    237

    36

    1983

    223

    29

    1982

    243

    26

    1981

    260

    53

    1980

    278

    50

    1 Source: Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Annual Reports 1980–88.

    2 Figures not yet available.

    (c) When the PCA upholds a complaint it is departmental practice to provide an appropriate remedy.

    Community Care Grants
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many community care grants have been refused on the grounds that a person moving from institutional to residential care did not fall within the terms of his direction 4 to social fund officers.

    Mr. Scott
    The information requested is not collected. However, community care grants are intended for people moving into the community from institutional or residential care, not for those moving from one form of care to another.

    Appeals
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals have been made to(a) medical appeals tribunals and (b) social security tribunals in each standard planning region in each of the last 10 years; how long on average it has taken to deal with these appeals each year; and what has been the shortest and longest time any appellant has had to wait for a decision in each year.

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I regret the Department does not hold the information requested for medical appeals tribunals. However, the office of the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals keeps certain statistics and the hon. Member may care to contact him direct.

    Information is also not available in the form requested for social security tribunals prior to 1984. The tables give the required information from 1984 to the quarter ending 30 September 1989 (the latest figures available). Statistics are not kept on the shortest and longest time any appellant has had to wait for a decision.
    498

    Social Security appeal tribunal: Statistics all benefits

    Period

    New lodgements

    Average weekly clearance time of appeals heard

    Great Britain

    9 months to 31 December 1984

    190,290

    13·5

    Year to 31 December 1985

    290,488

    14·8

    Year to 31 December 1986

    352,535

    16·0

    Year to 31 December 1987

    323,160

    21·7

    Year to 31 December 1988

    261,798

    24·7

    3 months to 31 March 1989

    43,573

    27·8

    3 months to 30 June 1989

    41,221

    25·0

    3 months to 30 September 1989

    38,483

    23·7

    Scotland

    9 months to 31 December 1984

    27,203

    11·7

    Year to 31 December 1985

    45,532

    12·3

    Year to 31 December 1986

    63,056

    14·0

    Year to 31 December 1987

    60,960

    23·3

    Year to 31 December 1988

    52,664

    24·9

    3 months to 31 March 1989

    6,631

    32·7

    3 months to 30 June 1989

    5,444

    28·9

    3 months to 30 September 1989

    4,442

    23·8

    Wales

    9 months to 31 December 1984

    9,808

    13·2

    Year to 31 December 1985

    14,998

    15·6

    Year to 31 December 1986

    20,287

    15·5

    Year to 31 December 1987

    18,567

    18·6

    Year to 31 December 1988

    16,198

    19·7

    3 months to 31 March 1989

    2,875

    19·7

    3 months to 30 June 1989

    2,872

    16·8

    3 months to 30 September 1989

    2,553

    19·5

    North East

    9 months to 31 December 1984

    29,209

    10·4

    Year to 31 December 1985

    45,553

    12·6

    Year to 31 December 1986

    55,589

    14·7

    Year to 31 December 1987

    58,349

    21·4

    Year to 31 December 1988

    48,364

    26·1

    3 months to 31 March 1989

    7,166

    26·2

    3 months to 30 June 1989

    6,420

    21·1

    3 months to 30 September 1989

    5,991

    19·9

    London North

    9 months to 31 December 1984

    26,250

    14·5

    Year to 31 December 1985

    39,861

    16·0

    Year to 31 December 1986

    44,059

    17·8

    Year to 31 December 1987

    34,659

    20·6

    Year to 31 December 1988

    26,550

    21·3

    3 months to 31 March 1989

    5,542

    26·0

    3 months to 30 June 1989

    5,221

    22·7

    3 months to 30 September 1989

    4,750

    23·1

    London South

    9 months to 31 December 1984

    22,540

    14·4

    Year to 31 December 1985

    34,893

    17·2

    Year to 31 December 1986

    39,636

    20·0

    Year to 31 December 1987

    30,663

    21·8

    Year to 31 December 1988

    23,310

    23·4

    3 months to 31 March 1989

    4,614

    26·7

    3 months to 30 June 1989

    5,358

    27·4

    3 months to 30 September 1989

    6,736

    28·6

    South Western

    9 months to 31 December 1984

    12,514

    12·7

    Year to 31 December 1985

    19,710

    14·7

    Year to 31 December 1986

    23,464

    15·7

    Year to 31 December 1987

    18,334

    18·1

    Year to 31 December 1988

    13,891

    19·2

    3 months to 31 March 1989

    2,801

    20·2

    3 months to 30 June 1989

    2,415

    18·6

    3 months to 30 September

    2,305

    19·5

    Midlands

    9 months to 31 December 1984

    32,367

    15·5

    Year to 31 December 1985

    43,666

    16·3

    499

    Period

    New lodgements

    Average weekly clearance time of appeals heard

    Year to 31 December 1986

    55,142

    16·2

    Year to 31 December 1987

    48,961

    23·6

    Year to 31 December 1988

    38,004

    26·3

    3 months to 31 March 1989

    6,662

    26·9

    3 months to 30 June 1989

    6,546

    23·3

    3 months to 30 September 1989

    5,555

    24·6

    North West

    9 months to 31 December 1984

    30,399

    15·3

    Year to 31 December 1985

    46,275

    15·1

    Year to 31 December 1986

    51,302

    15·0

    Year to 31 December 1987

    52,667

    21·7

    Year to 31 December 1988

    42,817

    26·9

    3 months to 31 March 1989

    7,282

    30·8

    3 months to 30 June 1989

    6,945

    30·3

    3 months to 30 September 1989

    6,151

    26·7

    500

    Period

    New lodgements

    Average weekly clearance time of appeals heard

    Wales and South West

    9 months to 31 December 1984

    22,322

    12·9

    Year to 31 December 1985

    34,708

    15·1

    Year to 31 December 1986

    43,751

    15·6

    Year to 31 December 1987

    36,901

    18·3

    Year to 31 December 1988

    30,089

    19·5

    3 months to 31 March 1989

    5,676

    20·0

    3 months to 30 June 1989

    5,287

    17·6

    3 months to 30 September 1989

    4,858

    19·5

    Note:
    New lodgements—up to 31 December 1986 the figures reflect "all appeals" which includes appeals outstanding from the previous quarter.
    From 1 January 1987 the figures are for new lodgements only.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Guatemala: Human Rights
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Government of Guatemala with respect to human rights violations in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government have on a number of occasions made representations to the Government of Guatemala, sometimes alone and sometimes in concert with our European partners, urging effective action to ensure respect for human rights and to bring to justice the perpetrators of violations. Most recently my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised our anxieties when he met the Guatemalan Foreign Minister, Señ or Ariel Rivera, on 19th February in London.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, in view of the seriously deteriorating situation in Guatemala, the reports that the Guatemalan president is no longer in control, and that assassinations have been carried out by police and military squads, can the Minister say whether there is any hope of negotiations between the government and the opposition— the URNG? Will the Minister also say whether the Government will give assistance to the committee of the national reconciliation dialogue which was set up in Guatemala?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we welcome reports that the URNG and the national reconciliation commission have met in Oslo, and we hope that the dialogue will continue. I gather that that took place at the weekend so, as yet, I have no reports on the progress made. We have contributed £ 5,000 to the national dialogue which was set up to achieve national reconciliation. That includes opposition and human rights groups.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government back up as much as they can the action of the United States? It is now also concerned with the human rights situation in Guatemala to the extent that recently it withdrew its ambassador, Mr. Stroock, for discussions. The United States has shown recently that it is able to impose its will on nations in central America. I hope that in this case Her Majesty's Government will be encouraged to do the right thing and see that the rule of law rather than military force prevails in Guatemala.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with our partners we shall regularly make clear our anxieties to the authorities in Guatemala. We, like the UN special expert, do not believe that the Government are responsible for abuses, or that they encourage or condone violations. The problem is rather ineffectiveness in dealing with violations.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord address himself specifically to the case of Hector Oqueli? He was very well known in this country and internationally as the international representative of the main opposition party— the MNR. He was abducted and murdered in January of this year. Will the Government consider offering to the Guatemalan Government the use of Scotland Yard, as they have done in other instances of this kind, in order to hunt out the perpetrator of that crime?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the killing of Hector Oqueli and Gilda Flores on 12th January was a cause for very grave concern. With our EC partners we issued a statement on 18th January condemning the murders. We hope that the present investigation will lead to prosecutions. I shall pass on to my right honourable friend the idea of Scotland Yard detectives assisting in the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government have any information about the scale of assassinations taking place in Guatemala? Are any figures available? Secondly, are the Government prepared to consider— and would it be a good idea— trying to persuade our European partners together with the United States to make a joint initiative to the Guatemalan Government?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have up-to-date Figures on the scale of the killings. I know that at one stage they were running at 400 per month, but that was some years ago. By 1988 they had decreased to one-fifth of that level, and there was general acknowledgement that the human rights situation had shown a marked improvement during President Cerezo's first two years. But the past two years have seen a deterioration, and especially so over the past 12 months. I do not have precise figures available. As I said earlier, with our EC partners and the United States we have regularly made clear our anxieties to the authorities in Guatemala.

Older Employees: Opportunities
2.43 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to encourage older workers to return to work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, Department of Employment Ministers take every opportunity to emphasise to employers the need to make full use of older people, particularly

1099
in view of demographic trends. Measures such as staff in jobcentres challenging all upper age limits on vacancies notified to them and the abolition of the earnings rule for pensioners were also introduced.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister accept that those of us who take an interest in these matters welcome the abolition of the earnings rule, as indeed we welcome the publicising campaigns just mentioned? Is the Minister also aware that there is little evidence to suggest that those campaigns on the demographic changes had any effect on the majority of employers to employ older workers? Will the Government consider legislation to end age discrimination in recruitment as an important first step to changing the minds of employers regarding the advantages of employing older workers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord says that there is no evidence to suggest that the Government's campaign worked. I am not sure that he has evidence to prove that it has not. We have always made plain— and we are continuing to do so, particularly in the light of demographic trends— that employers must look across the full range of potential employees to ensure that they obtain the best possible workforce for their particular industries; and that includes older people.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can I ask the Minister what steps, if any, the Civil Service as an employer has taken in order to increase the number of older people recruited into the service?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Civil Service is regarded as a good employer. It increased the range of ages at which people are encouraged to join the Civil Service, in some instances by raising the age qualification, in order to persuade older people to apply for jobs.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House the steps that have been taken to persuade employers to retain older employees? Will he also assure the House that the era in which redundancy is disguised as early retirement has ended? I am sure that he will be aware that many employers in past years made employees redundant at the age of 50 or so, but called it "early retirement".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we certainly do not encourage that practice by employers. We continually encourage employers, rather than making people redundant, to retrain and therefore retain them. We have done that by a variety of means, as the noble Baroness is aware.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, are the Government aware that the abolition of the earnings rule is extremely popular with older people? Do the Government possess any figures with regard to the increase in the numbers of older people staying at work or taking on new jobs after pension age? They are thus able to earn a little as well as taking their
1100
pension. Are there any figures as to the improvement brought about since last October?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not have those figures to hand; but I shall inquire whether they are available and write to the noble Baroness. It was particularly gratifying to hear my noble friend be so encouraging about that scheme, as it was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, expressing the same view.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, given the experience accumulated by older workers— of which this House in many ways is an example— would it not be desirable to launch a special campaign to retain older workers in a specific and constructive way without diminishing the promotional prospects of younger workers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord will be glad to hear that there are a number of instances where employers specifically encouraged older workers and they proved very successful. That is particularly so with Tesco stores, B&Q, British Telecom and British Rail— which have also introduced schemes— as well as MacDonald's and Sainsbury's. Where good practice occurs, it is seen as a success. It does not stop the employment opportunities of young people and we continue to encourage it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, am I correct in believing that retirement age in the Civil Service is still 60? Are there any barriers put in the way of employees in the Civil Service carrying on beyond that age?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the fact that the retirement age in the Civil Service is 60 is largely historical.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the Minister tell us at what age one becomes classified as an "older worker"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no straightforward answer to that question. Perhaps it should be more properly directed to the questioner, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but he did not answer the most relevant part of my question: whether there were barriers placed in the way of civil servants wishing to carry on beyond the age of 60? I know that it is traditional that they retire at 60.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the retirement age is 60, and that appears to be an ultimate barrier.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister claims— I do not know on what evidence— that the Civil Service is a good employer. Can the Government apply their mind to the question of the upper age limit in the Civil Service?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on to the Minister responsible the suggestion that the retirement age should be examined. I am sure that has happened in the past, and that it has been concluded that 60 is the right age for that particular industry. That allows civil servants who have an enormous amount of experience to go into other employment after reaching the age of 60.
Bareness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that "becoming older" is getting younger every day, and that 45 is now regarded as "older"? Can he tell us whether there is to be an age limit for members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness takes a great deal of interest in the affairs of older people. She successfully piloted a Bill through this House in the last Session. As regards upper age limits in the Cabinet, that will not so much be up to me but, of course, to the people of this country.

Universities: Financial Resources
2.50 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are providing adequate financial resources to allow universities to accept their full complement of students.
Bareness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have made appropriate provision for the public funding of universities to allow them to play their full part in catering for increasing student numbers. Actual admissions are in the hands of universities themselves.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, but is she aware that many universities are in worrying, if not desperate, straits? I give the example of London University which is already £ 100 short on each student. The council of the university which selects new intakes— I hope the noble Baroness will take full cognisance of this— can take only 125 of the 2,500 applications for the legal faculty. Does not the noble Baroness agree that that is a matter which should be investigated and put right?
Bareness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that London University has a rather large restructuring problem and that, therefore, it may not impact particularly on the specific Question on the Order Paper. I can say, however, that there is a continuing commitment towards making sure that there is a place for any young person who is qualified and who is willing to take up a course. There is also, of course, a continuing commitment to ensure that higher education receives its appropriate share of funding. I cannot deny that some departments in some universities are over-subscribed. The important point is that qualified young people receive a place in higher education.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that government cuts affecting the universities over the past few years have reduced the number of students in certain schools and departments? I give one example. The school of development studies at the University of East Anglia, partly as a result of work done in this House and in another place some years ago, had its undergraduate programme saved. However, today it can admit only half the number of undergraduates that it could two or three years ago when it was under threat. That is purely a matter of finance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to answer in detail the specific instance raised by the noble Lord. I can say, however, that in real terms public support for universities has risen by 8 per cent. since 1979 and that support in 1990–91 is 10 per cent. higher than for 1989–90.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to refer to London University except to say that those of us who teach there are under the impression that we are short of money. However, following on the Question— separate from the issue of whether or not financial resources are adequate, which is arguable— are the Government satisfied with the way that the Universities Funding Council is allocating resources? In particular, is the noble Baroness satisfied with the length of time that sometimes seems to be taken in advising universities of their allocations? Is it not the case that the UFC has become rather too bureaucratic?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Universities Funding Council is a very new body; therefore it is important to see how it settles down to its work. I agree with the noble Lord that it is frustrating if universities are kept waiting for information about their allocations. However, the Government are changing the framework to make it easier for universities to respond to the needs of students and employers in three ways: by shifting the balance of public funding towards the student fee; by encouraging the UFC in its introduction of a funding method which contains an element of competition; and by encouraging higher education to establish a broader funding base.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, notwithstanding her initial reply, is the noble Baroness aware that many universities are genuinely anxious and upset? Therefore, rather than making absurd criticism of what is happening but at the same avoiding the need to wait for Questions and Answers or debates, would it not be better if data were to be submitted to the department which can be examined?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, to my knowledge data are being collected all the time. However, as we now have a new system running it is important that the Government continue to monitor it to see how it is working. I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is better to have less rather than more government interference with the UFC.

The Economic League: Information to Employers
2.55 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to Viscount Ullswater's answer of 14th February (HL Deb. col. 1458), whether it is not a matter of public policy that secret information of questionable accuracy should be given by the Economic League to potential employers without the knowledge of applicants for employment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, employers have a right to make inquiries about potential employees and others have a right to collect and supply information to employers.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, while his reply is obviously the case, the organisation to which I refer has for a considerable time been misinforming employers? Is he further aware that a well-known solicitor was described as an anarchist when in fact he was a member of the Conservative Party? While recognising that those two descriptions are not entirely incompatible, is it not the case that the employer concerned was seriously misinformed?
Is the noble Viscount also aware that following representations by the Labour shadow chancellor, Mr. John Smith, the main banks have decided to discontinue using the service provided by the organisation? Would it not be a good idea for the Government, if they do no more, at least to express disapproval of what is going on? Even someone who acts as the local secretary to an anti-apartheid organisation can be described as a subversive.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is for those who distribute or receive information to do their best to ensure that it is accurate, wherever it comes from. If any information is inaccurate, as the noble Lord suggested was the case, that should be taken up with those who collect and supply the information.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat Statements that are to be made in another place on the serious disturbances in central London and Strangeways Prison, Manchester.
Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 21 [Rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 25, line 46, at end insert ("but in determining whether or not to approve any such scheme the paramount consideration to which the Lord President shall have regard shall be whether or not the acquisition and exercise by such persons of any such rights would, in his opinion, be likely to further the administration of justice".).
The noble and learned Lord said: The Committee will recall that Clause 21, to which this amendment refers, permits in certain circumstances persons who are not qualified lawyers to practise in the courts in Scotland— the criminal courts as well as the civil courts. Having regard to the terms of the treaty of union and to other matters, I have already submitted to the Committee that it would be right and proper that the Lord President should, in determining whether or not to approve of any such scheme, have regard to the needs of the administration of justice.
I direct attention to the terms of the amendment. It refers, first, to the "paramount consideration" being the administration of justice. The Committee will know that this use of the word "paramount" has a long history in the law, particularly the law in regard to children. If a court is required to look at custody or access to a child the court is required to have regard to the welfare of the child, and that is put as the paramount consideration.
In recent times, under the terms of the Children Act 1975 that priority been slightly altered in order to make it the first consideration to which the court must have regard. The purpose of using the term "paramount consideration" is to ensure that the Lord President, in balancing and assessing the various considerations which are relevant to the determination of his discretion, must hold that the interests of justice prevail over any other relevant consideration with which they are in conflict.
I need not read out the terms of Article XIX of the Treaty of Union in full, but I remind the Committee that they begin with the words:
"The Court of Session or the College of Justice do after the union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the laws of that kingdom and with the same authority and privileges as before the union subject nevertheless to such regulations for the better administration of justice as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain".
So the assumption must be that to permit non-qualified pleaders to appear in the High Court

1105
of Scotland and in both the civil and criminal courts of Scotland, is for the better administration of justice. Indeed that was what the Lord Advocate sought to assure the Committee of on the last occasion when we met.
Not only that, but the administration of justice is absolutely central in every possible way to the conduct of business in the courts. It is principally for that reason that I invite the Committee to approve this amendment. I also remind it that when the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates he was asked by the Royal Commission to consider this very question. He gave it as his view, which was subsequently confirmed in the proceedings in relation to the Courts and Legal Services Bill in this House, that the overall administration of justice might be seriously imperilled by having lay representatives appear in court. That was the view he gave in 1976 and it is the view which he gave to noble Lords in 1990 and which he adheres to. Therefore, it is all the more important that one should write into this Bill the need to preserve the administration of justice. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I support this amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. This section of the Act introduces a new feature into the legal system. As time passes and problems develop, it is almost inevitable that lay representatives will seek access to the courts. That access should be carefully controlled. It may be that the wording of this amendment is an unnecessary refinement because one always hopes that the Lord President will have the paramount interests of justice at heart. It will not do the Bill any harm to include these words. I support this amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps being slightly more cynical than the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, on looking at Clause 21 as it appears in the Bill and then looking at the new edition of that clause which the Government are putting forward, I note that there is no mention of the paramount needs of the administration of justice. Therefore, I have every expectation that the Government will simply accept this amendment. However, I do not think that it is in any way unnecessary: it is highly necessary. The Lord President is given a whole list of things which he has to consider and the administration of justice is not one of them. It should be one of them. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept this amendment or at least the spirit of it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has indicated, one would expect the Lord President of the Court of Session to have regard to the administration of justice in any decision that he had to take with regard to the approval of a scheme under this clause. The objectives of a wider choice of representative in maintaining the efficiency of the courts are not necessarily incompatible objectives. On the other hand, the convenience and efficiency of the courts
1106
are not the only goals. There is also the client's right to choose any competent representative who observes the duties to the court and who conforms to appropriate rules of conduct. That is also of fundamental importance.
That said, this amendment raises the question of what is to guide the Lord President and also the Secretary of State in considering applications. I accept that the new clause, to which we shall come shortly, does not address this matter squarely. I believe that the correct formulation would have essentially two elements to it. The first arose earlier in our discussions concerning Amendment No. 223. That is the desirability of having comparable rules of conduct for all pleaders in court. The second is the maintenance of
"appropriate standards of conduct and practice"
which is the expression used in Clause 15 (9) in relation to the code of conveyancing practice.
I propose to the noble and learned Lord that he withdraws this amendment. On that basis I shall come forward with amendments at Report stage to meet the objectives of the principles to which the Lord President should have regard in approving a scheme. That seems to fit in with what I said earlier to the noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Morton of Shuna, when we were discussing Clause 20. On the basis of that undertaking I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am very glad to hear what my noble and learned friend is saying. The words "administration of justice" may seem superfluous, but there is an element which must be borne in mind. There is no doubt that so much has been copied from the English charter. One has to remember that the head of the law in England is a judge. With great respect to the Secretary of State, he is not a judge but a politician. The appointment is always of a politician. There is a very grave danger of politicians being too influential in the sphere of the administration of justice.
I have looked at this matter from many angles. We are now at a time when questions about Europe raise difficulties. We should set a high standard if nothing else. It is for those reasons that I ask my noble and learned friend to think very hard about what is to be done in this case. The matter should not be left to drift.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It is with great temerity that I intervene on a Scottish Bill. There is a very important word in this amendment; namely, the "paramount" consideration. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate entirely met that point. As my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey said, the word has a long history. It used to appear in the various statutes relating to children when they spoke of the first and paramount consideration being the welfare of the child.
I always understood by that that the first consideration was to be considered before any other and that the paramount consideration was one that was more important than all others. If that is right, that is a key word in my noble and learned friend's

1107
amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate— provided that the various measures relating to children also apply to Scotland— will consider whether it is consonant with Scots law that the word "paramount" should be used and also whether he has it in mind to use that word in his amendment.
Lord McCluskey: As regards what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has said, the Committee will find that in the proceedings on the Children Bill 1975, as it then was, the noble and learned Lord made a very valuable contribution to the debate by drawing that distinction. It was that distinction which I had in mind when I included the words in question in the amendment. I need not develop the point any further. In answer to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said, I am happy that he has recognised the importance of these words. In the light of the assurances that he has given, I am content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 241A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 242 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 242A and 242B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 243 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 243A and 243B not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 26, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: Matters have moved with such speed in the past 15 seconds that it may take me a moment to find my note.
This amendment seeks to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (10). The Committee will see that the subsection in which it appears relates to the making by the Lord President of an act of sederunt, which is subordinate legislation in the civil courts, or an act of adjournal, which contains the subordinate legislation governing criminal proceedings. This is not the last occasion on which I propose to ask this question and it is certainly not the first time that I have asked it. Under what circumstances and in what type of case will a person not being a lawyer be allowed to conduct criminal jury trials in the High Court of Justiciary? The only purpose of making an act of adjournal is to regulate proceedings in such a case.
If the Lord Advocate has in mind that what I have been calling the barefoot pleaders— the non-lawyers who are to be given the licence to plead in our courts— are to be allowed to appear in the district court, that is fine; if they are to be allowed to appear in summary causes, that may be tolerable. But I want to know who the Government have in mind who may apply for and obtain a licence to conduct criminal jury trials in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. I have asked that question about six times but I have not yet had an answer.
It may be proper too when one looks at what is proposed in the subsection— that acts of adjournal will be made— to ask what on earth could be put into an act of adjournal which would enable the barefoot pleader appearing in the High Court of Justiciary to deal with the situation which lay totally outwith his expertise. Let us suppose that he is allowed to plead on the ground that he is very knowledgeable about insolvency and bankruptcy, and so he appears in a case in which there are likely to be insolvency and bankruptcy charges. He thus begins to represent a client. But all of a sudden there are added to the insolvency and bankruptcy charges other charges such as fraud. One could think of many others. Let us suppose further that a second accused is added to the case who is represented by a barefoot pleader or by somebody else. Is his defence to be affected and possibly prejudiced by the perhaps bumbling incompetence of the barefoot pleader who appears on behalf of the other accused?
I have asked this question several times. I have suggested persons who might possibly be allowed to plead in the criminal courts or who might be interested in so doing. I suggested possibly accountants, patent agents or insolvency practitioners. I was assured by the Lord Advocate that none of these persons has in Scotland expressed the slightest interest in appearing in the Scottish courts. When further pressed on the matter the Lord Advocate said that the only persons who had since the publication of the Green Paper indicated a possible interest were those who were interested in adoption. That is an interesting point. One could well understand that persons who were interested in adoption proceedings might want to have some right to appear in court where the circumstances of the litigation are quite different from those of a normal litigation.
However, I need to know— and I think the Committee ought to know— who it is the Lord Advocate has in mind. If it be the case, as I suspect it is, that we shall never see lay pleaders appearing in criminal jury trials, there is no need to give this power to the Lord President or the Lord Justice General to make acts of adjournal regulating their appearances. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This amendment appears in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, and my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, is unable to be present today and has asked me to move various amendments standing in his name.
This provision opens a very dangerous line in what lawyers often forget is the most important side of the law. I refer to the criminal law— the law relating to the freedom of the citizen. The Government are apparently intent on watering down the competence of those who are available to appear for people charged with offences. This is a very dangerous proceeding. If the idea is that people from the citizens advice bureaux with no legal qualifications should be able to appear to defend people on criminal charges we should know that. The noble

1109
and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should tell us that instead of merely including this potential trap which grossly affects the freedom of the subject.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: When we were discussing this clause at an earlier stage in relation to the use of the words "or other body" in Clause 21 (1) I suggested that we should tread carefully in relation to the speed with which such innovations in the legal system of Scotland are introduced.
I agree with the observations made on this issue by the noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Morton of Shuna. There is a world of a difference between an accountant presenting an accountancy case under Clause 21 (1) and a non-qualified criminal lawyer, putting it that way, defending someone in the High Court. As matters presently stand, presumably an unqualified lawyer could see his way to defending someone on a murder charge. I have always recognised from this side of the Chamber that pleading in the supreme courts is a particular practice demanding considerable skill and knowledge. We are not talking here of the solicitor advocate who will have a legal background before he is given the right to plead in the courts. We are talking about non-qualified people and presumably people who are unskilled in the law being given a free rein with the consent of the Lord President under this clause to conduct serious cases involving, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morion of Shuna, has already indicated, the liberty of the subject.
The problem about the High Court in criminal cases is that the accused has only one kick at the ball. If his defender mis-kicks the ball, it is not the defender but the accused who suffers. I suggest with respect to the Lord Advocate that he might consider introducing these pleaders to the civil courts first. If it is demonstrated that the system can work in the civil courts, the whole matter might be looked at again in relation to the criminal courts. But it is a fairly startling proposition that this system should be extended to serious cases in the supreme criminal courts.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In this brief debate on the amendment such language as "watering down the competence of those who are available to appear" has been used. I say at the outset that should a group of persons put forward a scheme under Clause 21 to allow them to have rights of audience in the High Court of Justiciary I do not envisage in any circumstances that there would be a dimunition of the standards that are expected in that court at the present time. I cannot conceive of any circumstances where the Lord President, in having regard to an application under Clause 21, or the Lord Justice General, as I should say, in relation to the High Court of Justiciary, would not have regard to the concerns of noble and learned Lords that very serious criminal charges might be confronted.
In previous debates on this clause I have sought to explain— and I run the risk now of repeating myself— that under subsection (2) we are dealing not only with the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session; we are also dealing with a range of courts
1110
and possibly a range of business. I appreciate that in moving the amendment the noble and learned Lord is concerned to take the matter to the extreme example— namely, the criminal courts— to ensure that in such circumstances if a group of persons were to be allowed to practice they would have the necessary expertise, experience and training.
As I have already indicated, and as the noble and learned Lord already appreciates, there is no identified group as yet who have come forward seeking this right of audience in the High Court of Justice. However, as I said, were such a group to emerge there would be no possibility that the persons involved would be inadequately qualified or lacking in the necessary competence to deal with such matters. To pursue the noble and learned Lord's example, if someone comes forward who is an accountant and who has some bankruptcy experience, and that alone, I cannot for a moment envisage that the Lord President and the Secretary of State, in line with his interest in such matters, would agree to such a person appearing in the highest criminal courts.
Under Clause 21 we have a scheme which allows such a group of people to acquire the necessary rights of audience if they satisfy what is required of them in the terms set out thereunder. It is not to look to any diminution of standards; on the contrary, it may be that in a certain specialised area a particular expertise will be provided to meet the needs of certain clients. I do not wish to see in general the criminal side of the law in Scotland excluded from the scheme contained in Clause 21. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, seems to realise, I do not as yet have an identified group in mind. He may well be right in that, given the high standards that will be required of those appearing in the criminal courts— and indeed in the civil courts— no such group of people will emerge. That may be so. However, as I sought to emphasise, this is an enabling clause which sets out a scheme and it does not follow from that that there is any group outwith those who are formerly qualified as lawyers who would meet the very demanding testing requirements that would doubtless be imposed by the Lord President or the Lord Justice General under the clause.
Lord Morton of Shuna: At the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I must try to press the noble and learned Lord on the matter. One hears that the Government are short of legislative time. If that is so, why do they propose that non-lawyers should be empowered to conduct criminal trials which may put citizens of this state in prison if they have no one in mind for this provision; that is, no professional or other body? What is the point of this provision? Is there a purpose somewhere? Is there to be a general rule applied to all professions so that we can expect medical legislation to be introduced which would empower professional or other bodies to conduct operations or to carry out brain surgery? It seems to me to be a totally unnecessary amendment, especially if the Government have no intention of bringing it into force. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can clarify the situation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not think that I can. I have explained the position. The noble and learned Lord may find that amusing, but I thought that explained most clearly what the scheme entails. I should have thought that he understood readily enough how legislation which provides for a scheme (with arrangements to be filled in at a later stage) goes forward, especially when it is left to the Lord President or to the Lord Justice General. As the noble and learned Lord mentioned earlier, it may be that there will be no such group of people who have sufficient expertise to achieve what is proposed. The scheme is as I have explained it and I do not think I can elaborate.
Lord McCluskey: The noble and learned Lord will understand that I have fully comprehended all he said. However, his problem is not clarity; it is nudity. He has nothing to offer us except himself and, as I understand it, the view of the Secretary of State. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was guilty of a slip of the tongue— at least I trust that it was a slip of the tongue— when he talked about the High Court of Justice. There is no such animal in Scotland; it is of course the High Court of Justiciary. It may be that that slip of the tongue is a Freudian one and betrays the origins of this provision.
During the course of these proceedings in Committee the noble and learned Lord has been very frank, both today and on previous occasions, in saying that no one asked for the provision before it was inserted into the Green Paper and that no one since its publication has said "That is a good idea; we would like to take it on". He has also now made it plain that the Government have no one in mind in this connection. Further, he has made clear the fact that it is to be hoped that the long stop is that the Lord Justice General and the Secretary of State will stop anyone who is foolish enough to try it. Therefore, in those circumstances, the inevitable remorseless logic of the situation is that he should abandon this absurd clause. If he does so, I have no doubt that he will receive the support of his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who, when speaking not of the High Court, but of tribunals and the lower courts, said that "the overall administration of Justice might be seriously imperilled by lay representation".
If that is so, I am afraid that the Government are in an intolerable position. Although I now propose to withdraw the amendment, I trust that between now and Report stage, which I believe will be some time in May, they will have decided that the proper course would be to follow the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. If they propose to proceed on this line they should initially permit lay representatives to appear in the lowest courts to see how they cope with the work; or, better still, we should wait and see how this great experiment works south of the Border and then perhaps we could go to school upon that experience.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may suggest that the very presence of this clause in
1112
the legislation which mentions the High Court of Justiciary may put ideas into the wrong people's heads. Many people fancy themselves as budding Perry Masons and they may well form a group of those who wish to defend people in the High Court. Such action would set the ball rolling. As regards the beginning of the operation of this part of the Bill, this is a clause which we could well do without.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws the amendment I should like to say a few words. I must say that I admire my courage as a non-lawyer and as an Englishwoman in daring to interevene in this debate. However, I must protest yet again at a statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He said that he would decide the matter, presumably by regulation. It is quite clearly a matter of very considerable importance. He said that it would be settled afterwards. I should also like clarification of the curious accusation made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about the "nudity" of what is proposed. Is that a Scottish or a legal term? I am afraid that I failed to comprehend it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If it is a term of art, I am afraid I do not know it—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Art not law!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Baroness cares to look at Clause 21 she will find that under any scheme put forward thereunder the approval of the Lord President or the Lord Justice General of the High Court of Justiciary will be required before any group of people can apply. That is what I referred to in my explanation. It is the senior judge either in a criminal or civil capacity in Scotland who would be required to approve such people.
I was seeking to indicate that this is not a matter in which the Government or the Secretary of State would be involved; it would be the senior judge in Scotland who would have the right to approve or disapprove of a scheme. I can only anticipate that in our highest courts he or any future judge would require the maintenance of standards of conduct, competence and qualification that exist at present.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate advocating that a better body than the Scottish Bar or the Law Society may emerge and that these budding Perry Masons may receive better training than the conventional lawyers of Scotland?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: That would be to invite me to reveal a known and personal prejudice.
Baroness Seear: The noble and learned Lord cannot avoid the fact that this will not come back to Parliament. That is what worries me.
Lord McCluskey: I apologise if I upset the noble Baroness by my use of that word. Perhaps I should have said "nakedness" rather than "nudity". I mean that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate

1113
has been totally frank. He has hidden absolutely nothing from us. I hope that he will contemplate the situation that he has revealed to the Committee and will feel thoroughly ashamed of it. Then perhaps in due course he will withdraw the provision. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 244A:
Pag'3 26, line 29, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (11A) below, ").
The noble Lord said: I think that this amendment could, for the convenience of the Committee, be taken together with Amendment No. 244B. The purpose is to make sure that there is proper surveillance of the schemes which are approved. Once the purpose of any scheme approved for a particular court or a particular purpose is over, that scheme will then cease to have effect in relation to the particular body.
The proposed subsection (11B) enables the Secretary of State, if he finds that,
"members of the body who have exercised rights of audience in any court in pursuance of the scheme have been the subject of complaints of such a nature that he considers that the scheme should be brought to an end",
to bring it to an end. This is a protective measure to make sure there is continual vigilance over the actions in the court of the new pleaders. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am willing to consider this matter further. I see no need for approvals under Clause 21 to be subject to conditions, given the mechanism for consideration of a draft scheme and the offering of comments upon it. On the other hand there may be circumstances where there ought to be provision for a review of rules or schemes once approved. I shall give further thought to the noble Lord's argument in that context and, if appropriate, bring forward suitable amendments at Report. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: There is just one matter that I wish to add, in view of the generous attitude of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in relation to this amendment. The Lord President and the Lord Justice General— the same person holding two offices— ought to have an input on this matter as well. If a body has won the right, or a scheme has been approved, it is not just the Secretary of State who ought to be able to say, "This is not working very well". At least the Lord President ought to have the same right; indeed he should have a prior right.
I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate nodding in my direction. No doubt he will bear this in mind as well.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: That is certainly a point I shall take into account in examining the matter before the Report stage.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his attitude towards this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 244B not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 26, line 42, leave out subsection (13).
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete from the clause the provision that where a function is conferred,
"on any person by this section he shall exercise that function as soon as is reasonably practicable".
We spoke about this in a different context previously. Members of the Committee will see that the only persons on whom functions are conferred by Clause 21 are the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord President of the Court of Session. Perhaps the Director of Fair Trading is also concerned, as my noble and learned friend reminds me. I wish to know which of these persons needs a reminder of his duty to get on with considering a scheme when a scheme is presented to him.
I have asked previously whether there is any precedent. I received no answer. There may well be, but I do not know of it. I suspect, if I dare say so in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that the provision requiring persons to carry out their statutory duties with the utmost expedition derives from a feeling that Part XI of the Building Societies Act 1986 which created the concept of a conveyancing practitioner and allowed building societies and the like to carry out conveyancing was never brought into force. There may have been mutterings in dark places about that omission on the part of the noble and learned Lord the then Lord Chancellor whose duty it was. My dark suspicions may be totally unfounded. Whatever the history may be I wish to know two things. What is the precedent for this? And why is it necessary in this clause? I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wish to add one question to which I also did not receive an answer when a similar clause was debated. If a duty is put on somebody, it is normal parliamentary legislative practice to attach a sanction to it. What sanction is on these three, or two, gentlemen if they fail to comply with their duty? No offence is being created. The Secretary of State and the Lord President are not to be punished if they fail. Surely that illustrates the futility of this subsection.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We dealt with this matter at some length in relation to Clause 20 in which there is a provision in exactly the same terms. I apologise. I thought we had already fully dealt with the matter. I cannot give the noble and learned Lord a precedent. I believe that I explained the reasoning behind the provision in some detail when we last met in Committee.
Lord McCluskey: I was happy to accept the assurance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord

1115
Advocate earlier that he would consider inserting in this clause the words "paramount consideration and administration of justice". If one can justify— as he sought to justify— a clause such as the present one on the basis that Ministers and judges need prompting from time to time— a gentle reminder, as he put it— I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will bear that in mind when he reconsiders the earlier point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 245A:
Leave out Clause 21 and insert the following new clause:
Rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience.
21.— (1) Any professional or other body may, for the purpose of enabling any of their members who is a natural person to acquire—

(a) rights to conduct litigation on behalf of members of the public; and

(b) rights of audience,

make an application in that regard to the Lord President and the Secretary of State.
(2) An application under subsection (1) above shall include a draft scheme—

(a) specifying—

(i) the courts;

(ii) the categories of proceedings;

(iii) the nature of the business; and

(iv) the rights to conduct litigation and the rights of audience,

in relation to which the application is made;

(b) describing—

(i) the training requirements which the body would impose upon any of their members who sought to acquire any right such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above; and

(ii) the code of practice which they would impose upon their members in relation to the exercise by those members of any rights acquired by them by virtue of this section,

in the event of the application being granted; and

(c) proposing arrangements for—

(i) the indemnification of members of the public against loss suffered by them through the actings of the body's members in the exercise by those members of any rights acquired by them by virtue of this section; and

(ii) the treatment by the body of complaints made to them by members of the public in relation to the actings of members of the body exercising rights by virtue of this section.

(3) A code of practice such as is mentioned in subsection (2) (bXii) above shall include provision with regard to revoking, suspending or attaching conditions to the exercise of any right acquired by a member of the body by virtue of this section in consequence of a breach by that member of that code of practice.
(4) A draft scheme submitted under this section shall also include the proposals of the body in relation to such other matters as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations made under this section.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) The Lord President shall consider the provision made in any draft scheme submitted to him under subsection (1) above in relation to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) (a) and (b) above; and the Secretary of State shall, in consultation with
1116
the Director, and subject to subsection (8) below, consider the provision so made in subsection (2) (b) and (c) above.
(7) The Lord President and the Secretary of State shall consult each other in considering a draft scheme submitted to them under subsection (1) above, and may, either jointly or severally, make preliminary observations to the body concerned in relation to that draft; and the body may make such adjustments to the draft as appear to them to be appropriate, and the Lord President and the Secretary of State (who shall consult the Director in respect of any adjustments made in relation to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) (b) or (c)) shall thereafter consider the draft scheme as so adjusted.
(8) In relation to paragraph (b) (ii) of subsection (2) above, the duty of the Secretary of State under subsection (6) above is limited to a consideration of any provision of such a code of practice as is mentioned in that paragraph as would, in his view, directly or indirectly inhibit the freedom of a member of the body concerned to undertake all the work necessary for the preparation of a case or for the presentation of a case before the court, other than such a provision which has that effect only by reason of the provision made in the draft scheme with respect to the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above.
(9) After they have considered a draft scheme under subsections (6) and (7) above, if the Lord President and the Secretary of State—

(a) are satisfied with the draft scheme, the Lord President shall grant the application, and shall so inform the body;

(b) are not satisfied with the scheme, the Lord President shall refuse the application, and shall so inform the body, giving written reasons for the refusal.

(10) Where the Lord President has granted an application under subsection (9) (a) above, in relation to—

(a) civil proceedings, the Court of Session may by act of sederunt; and

(b) criminal proceedings, the High Court of Justiciary may by act of adjournal,

make such provision for giving effect to the scheme as appears to it to be appropriate.
(11) Where a body have made a successful application under this section, any of their members who has complied with the terms of the scheme in relation to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) (b) (i) above shall have the right to conduct litigation or rights of audience to which that compliance entitles him.
(12) Where a function is, whether expressly or by implication, conferred on any person by this section he shall exercise that function as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(13) Nothing in this section affects the power of any court in relation to any proceedings—

(a) to hear a person who would not otherwise have a right of audience before that court in relation to those proceedings; or

(b) to refuse to hear a person (for reasons which apply to him as an individual) who would otherwise have a right of audience before that court in relation to those proceedings, and where a court so refuses it shall give its reasons for that decision.

(14) A person exercising any right of audience held by virtue of this section shall have the same immunity from liability for negligence in respect of his acts or omissions as if he were an advocate, and no act or omission on the part of any such person shall give rise to an action for breach of contract in relation to the exercise by him of such a right of audience.
(15) For the purposes of this section—

"right of audience" includes, in relation to any court, any such right exercisable by an advocate; and

"right to conduct litigation" means the right to exercise on behalf of a client all or any of the functions, other than any right of audience, which may be exercised by a solicitor in relation to litigation.

(16) Any person who wilfully and falsely—

(a) pretends to have any right to conduct litigation or right of audience by virtue of this section; or

(b) where he has any such right, pretends to have any further such right which he does not have; or

1117

(c) takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he has any such right or, as the case may be, any further such right,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I think the casual observer could be forgiven for believing that the new clause inserted by this amendment in place of Clause 21 is almost identical to its precursor. The clause has been recast to delineate more clearly, I hope, the functions of the Secretary of State and the Lord President in relation to applications from bodies for rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience. Most particularly I hope that it deals with the points that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, raised at Second Reading. I trust that the new clause is easier to follow.
Subsection (1) now provides for an application to be made to both the Lord President and the Secretary of State at the same time. This will make it simpler for the Lord President and the Secretary of State to give the necessary consideration to any application at the same time and will save unnecessary comings and goings between the two. Subsections (2) and (3) outline the matters which are required to be included in a draft scheme submitted under the clause. Noble Lords will note that provisions with regard to the revocation, suspension or attachment of conditions to any rights granted under this clause will now appear in the code of practice which any applicant body will be required to impose upon its members.
Subsection (7) is a simplified provision and explains the process whereby the applicant body is enabled to react to the initial observations of the Lord President and the Secretary of State. Subsection (8) places an important limitation on the role of the Secretary of State in relation to his consideration of the applicant body's proposed code of practice. The subsection makes it clear that he will be concerned only with ensuring that the code of practice is no more restrictive than is necessary in the interests of justice. This would clearly be unreasonable if the restrictions were intrinsic to the application itself. The final part of the subsection deals with that point.
Subsection (14) is new and provides persons who have acquired a right of audience under this clause with the same immunity from suit in relation to their exercise of such rights as an advocate. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that those holding rights of audience under this clause are not put at a professional disadvantage in comparison with advocates.
This amendment provides a logical and balanced structure for the according of rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation to non-lawyers. The role of the Lord President will ensure that standards are fully maintained and the Secretary of State will be concerned with preventing unnecessarily restrictive professional practices. Members of the Committee will appreciate that it may be some time before the first body makes an application for rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation under this clause. I am confident, however, that the provisions contained in this amendment will ensure that only those who are qualified and competent to hold such rights will secure them. As I have indicated to the Committee
1118
on previous occasions, concern has been expressed that new schemes under Clause 20 may lay a considerable burden upon the Lord President of the Court of Session. I have already indicated to him that it is not envisaged to have an immediate commencement of this measure in order to enable any applications that he has to deal with under Clause 20 to be dealt with first. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: We have in a sense discussed a lot of the principle that lies behind this amendment which seeks to rewrite Clause 21. I do not wish to depart from anything I said about that, but it puzzles me why the Lord President is debarred from consideration of the code of practice which is contained in subsection (3) and is not to consider the question of the treatment of complaints or the indemnification of members. The effect of that is to tell the Lord President that he must not consider codes of conduct. As the Lord President is the final arbiter on codes of conduct for solicitors and advocates, it seems totally strange that it should be the Secretary of State who is to lay down codes of conduct for non-lawyers practising in the courts. It would seem sensible for the Lord Advocate and the other persons in this mystical group, which the Government apparently do not know exists, to lay down codes of conduct with the assistance of the Secretary of State or anybody else. Surely the Lord President has an input as regards what the regulations and schemes should contain. If he is the person who in the end has to approve them, it seems odd to me to draft a new clause which in effect states that he is not to consider the provisions within subsection (2) (c) or (3).
Subsection (4) states:
"A draft scheme … shall also include the proposals of the body in relation to such other matters as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations made under this section".
That is what my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey refers to as a Henry VIII clause. It appears that anything at all can be put in by the Secretary of State. What does that measure mean? Surely if this kind of wide power is to be given to the Government— that is what the subsection entails— we should be told that there are some limits at least to the power. Further, the matter of criminal proceedings is in my view wrong in principle. The omission of the paramount interests of justice is also wrong in principle. Beyond noting those two points I should say that I generally disapprove of this amendment just as I disapprove of the clause which it seeks to amend.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: As I understand the position of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in relation to Clause 21, it is the following. I hope the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong. Although he has moved Amendment No. 245A, which sets out the proposed new Clause 21, I believe he has agreed to reconsider various matters. As I understood the position, he will take into account the position of the Lord President when he reconsiders all these matters. It would be rather nonsensical at this stage of the proceedings to treat this amendment as the proposed final form of Clause 21. Any further discussion of it would be a waste of

1119
the Committee's time until the final revised form of Clause 21 is seen on Report.
Lord Renton: I am afraid that my mind does not always register as quickly as my noble and learned friend speaks. For that I apologise. However, having listened to his explanation and having read the clause twice, and, I believe, carefully, I am trying to find out who has the last word in this matter. I am trying to find out whether it is the Lord President or the Secretary of State. They are obliged to consult each other and in some respects they have quite separate functions. The Lord President has to do some things and the Secretary of State has to do others. Subsection (4), for example, states:
"A draft scheme submitted under this section shall also include the proposals of the body in relation to such other matters as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations".
I am sure it would help us all to understand much better what the Government are doing if we could be told who has the last word.
The only thing I wish to add is that over the past 11 years I have been a keen supporter of this Government, mainly because I understood that we were going to reduce the influence and power of the state. But here we find that in a matter where the Secretary of State has not previously had power, he now seems to be given a considerable amount of it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: This proposed new clause is in some respects better than the one it seeks to replace but in other respects it is worse. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said, it will certainly need to be rewritten in the light of the undertakings given in earlier parts of the discussion. While it is being redrafted, the gerundive should be removed from line 24 and replaced by a gerund. However, I shall not dwell upon that matter at this time of day.
The first matter that disturbs me is that the Bill received a Second Reading on 30th January and was put out for Committee last month. The first thing that happened was that a whole clause and parts of other clauses were totally rewritten. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, one has to sit down and try to understand again what the measure contains. What this new clause contains is something that the former clause did not. Under the former clause a scheme was proposed to the Lord President, who is the chief judge in Scotland. If it got past him, it went to the Secretary of State, who could stop it, but that was all. The Secretary of State had a kind of veto. In other words, if the scheme failed to get past the Lord President, that was the end of it. Even if it got past him, it might still fail. However, under the new draft the Secretary of State has a particular input which is his own. Thus the power of the Lord President under the former clause has now been diminished. To that extent the clause is worse.
However, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate looks at the whole matter again, I invite his attention to his redraft of subsection (8). This provides a model, if not for this clause at least for other clauses. It provides that the duty of the Secretary of State is limited to a consideration of
1120
particular matters in so far as they would affect particular prescribed matters. In other words, the Secretary of State is not to consider the interests of justice. That is to be left to the Lord President. That is the proper division for which I have been arguing from the start of this Bill. That subsection is a kind of model which should be applied to other clauses.
Subsection (10) (b) is a repetition of the measure that I have already objected to in relation to criminal proceedings and acts of adjournal. I need not rehearse what I have said on that. Subsection (12) is a repetition of the subsection that I urge the Government to delete; namely, the subsection which requires the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State, and now I believe the Director General of Fair Trading, to do things,
"as soon as is reasonably practicable".
My final point is an important one. As I understood it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate accepted a notion in relation to the admission to the supreme courts of solicitor advocates. He accepted the notion that they, like ordinary advocates, should be subject to the fit and proper person test. When the noble and learned Lord considers Clause 21 as redrafted, he will find that it does not, like the former draft, contain the fit and proper test. The level playing field and the interests of justice both require the same thing: namely, that if a person is to be admitted to plead in the High Court whether as an advocate, a licensed solicitor or a barefoot pleader, he should be a fit and proper person. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate provides his next draft of this clause— which may not be the last— he will take that point on board also.
Baroness Phillips: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I wish to make a small point. Perhaps it is peculiar to Scottish law but I have never before seen a reference to a "natural person". One is surely not dealing with unnatural persons. I noted that the word "persons" is also used. Is there any reason why the words "natural persons" are used in relation to Scottish law?
The Earl of Balfour: My noble and learned friend will see that subsections (6) and (7) of the new clause refer only to "the Director". After reading the old Clause 21 I know that that relates to the Director General of Fair Trading, which was there written out in full. However, the new clause does not indicate who the director is and that must be considered at a later stage.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall look at the point raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour. As regards the "natural person", it is envisaged that a professional body will be making applications on behalf of its members who are natural persons and individuals. They will not be other associations or companies but one professional body making applications for its individual members—
Baroness Phillips: As a teacher of English, which I assume is spoken over the Border, I believe that reference should be made to "the person". "Natural person" is an unnecessary and confusing description.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We dealt with the matter earlier and I pointed out that, as a matter of drafting, it is correct to use the word "natural" when one is speaking of a person.
Following the undertakings and concessions that I made during our earlier debates on amendments to the existing Clause 21, it is clear that a number of amendments must be made to the clause.
As regards the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, I hope that the relationship between the Lord President and the Secretary of State is more clearly set out. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, seized on the issue because he pointed out that subsection (8) shows a clear and important limitation in the involvement of the Secretary of State. I am grateful for his recognition of that. Both the Lord President and the Secretary of State must agree for their respective interests. If they do not agree there will be no approval. Therefore, the Lord President, who is the senior judge in Scotland, has a veto on the introduction of such a group as pleaders into the courts.
I hope that I have persuaded Members of the Committee that the new clause is now set out more clearly and that a proper and important position is given to the Lord President.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My noble and learned friend has confused me even more. Subsection (6) confines the Lord President in his consideration to subsections (1) and (2) (a) and (b). Subsection (8) confines the Secretary of State to various issues. Who considers subsections (2) (c) and (3)? Surely it would be better to provide that the Lord President "shall consider the scheme". However, if the matter is to be redrafted, no doubt the noble and learned Lord will take that into account.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Following his consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading the Secretary of State shall have regard to matters mentioned in subsection (2) (b) or (c). Subsection (2) (a) is a matter exclusively for the Lord President. Subsection (2) (b) is a matter in which they are both involved, subject to the limitations highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. Subsection (2) (c) is a matter for the Secretary of State. However, I emphasise that the scheme falls if in any part the Lord President does not come to an agreement.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In the light of observations made by my noble friend Lady Phillips, and before the claymores start swinging north of the Border, I wish to indicate that the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on the grammatical construction of the clause indicates that not only do we speak English north of the Border but we understand it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has been good enough to say that he will reconsider the drafting of the clause but I wish to draw attention to an additional matter. Subsection (5) provides that the regulations under the clause shall be subject to the negative scrutiny
1122
procedure. In a number of recent statutes passed in this and the previous Session Members of the Committee had difficulty in determining whether the affirmative resolution procedure or the negative resolution procedure should be applicable.
I suggest that, although there will be many borderline cases, a rough test might be as follows: if it is more likely than not that Parliament will wish to examine the regulations, it should be by affirmative resolution procedure; if it is possible but not at all probable that Parliament will wish to examine the regulations, the negative procedure is appropriate. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would reconsider the matter in that light, giving it such weight as he thinks right.
Lord McCluskey: The previous clause made clear that any decision made by the Lord President disapproving a scheme was subject to judicial review. I am now unclear about whether the decisions of the Lord President and the Secretary of State are intended to be the subject of judicial review. I do not ask the Lord Advocate to tell me this afternoon but to make the matter clear when redrafting the clause.
Subsection (16) provides that a person who wilfully and falsely pretends to have rights of audience that he does not have, although he may have some, is to be subject to a fine. I believe that a person who has rights of audience in a civil court, for example, and represents that his rights of audience are in a criminal court— or a person who has rights of audience in relation to insolvency and pretends that he has rights of audience in relation to matrimonial proceedings— should be automatically disbarred. Accordingly, in replacement of the summary conviction and a fine on standard level 4, I suggest that the redrafted clause should include a provision that such a person shall automatically lose his rights of audience in whichever court he possesses them.
The Earl of Selkirk: In redrafting the clause I hope that my noble and learned friend will bear in mind that in Scotland three people are concerned in the administration of justice; the director general, the Secretary of State and the Lord President. I have read the clause four or five times and it is extremely difficult to know who is responsible for what. For example, subsection (8) provides:
"a code of practice as is mentioned in that paragraph as would, in his view, directly or indirectly inhibit the freedom of a member of the body concerned to undertake all the work".
That provision refers to the Secretary of State but I had thought it was the director general. I know that I am stupid and I do not understand such matters, but who is responsible for what is a matter of public interest? Will my noble and learned friend bear that closely in mind when redrafting the clause?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether new Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: Having given notice of my intention I wish to make a general point which applies as much to the new clause as to the old. There have been many indications during the proceedings of the Committee to suggest that the Government have given virtually no thought to the details of how the provisions will work in Scotland.
I do not know the position in England, but in Scotland the administration of justice in the supreme courts is in the hands of a body called the College of Justice. There are no Inns of Court and no partnerships. All the advocates— anyone who fulfils the requirements and is admitted to the Faculty of Advocates— use a common services agency called Faculty Services Ltd. It provides them with telephones, secretarial services, telex, computer access to law reports, and so on and so forth.
Secondly, members of the faculty share access to the Advocates' Library which is the finest library in Scotland and was created by the advocates and the bulk of it given to the nation in 1921 for nothing. The advocates have therefore created the library and those common services which are open to members of the Faculty of Advocates. Sitting as a judge in the court, one is dependent not just upon the honesty and integrity of advocates, but on their having the necessary books. If a case comes up, they can within half a minute send out someone to obtain a photocopy of the relevant report and lay it before the court or bring the book itself. Sometimes we need a photocopy because we frequently refer to old books which pre-date the Act of Union.
I put this point to the Government to think about. I do not know how those lay persons— the barefoot pleaders— who will come into the Court of Session will have access to the books. I do not know how they will have access to the unreported judgments of the court. Counsel constantly refer us to unreported judgments which are contained in and maintained by the Faculty of Advocates in special files. They never get into the books. I do not know how they will obtain access to typists, photocopiers, telex and all the other facilities.
I do not expect my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to reply, and it would waste time if I sought to make him do so today. However, I ask him to bear those points in mind, in the generous spirit with which he has approached the Committee proceedings, at least today, and to think carefully about them. I suggest that, when he does so, he will go to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and say, "Let's just put this on ice".
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I have listened with absolute horror to the debate and have seen distinguished lawyers tearing the Bill apart. I have seen the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate introduce a new clause before the original clause has been debated. As a layman, I think it is horrifying. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will now insist that his department has plenty of time to put the new clause right with the amendments before it comes back on Report.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have already indicated that there are further necessary amendments, but
1124
those comments are somewhat ungracious of the noble Lord. I am offering to make those amendments in response to a number of questions and amendments which were tabled to the existing Clause 21 by noble and learned Lords opposite and on the Cross-Benches. I shall therefore certainly address myself to those matters and to a number of other points that were made during the debate on new Clause 21.
On the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, there would undoubtedly be difficulties of access to libraries and the like in the Parliament House building in Edinburgh. As I understand it, that same problem might emerge with regard to solicitor-advocates under Clause 21. On the question of access to the books of the Faculty of Advocates, as I understand it the Faculty of Advocates has already indicated a certain generosity of spirit in looking towards some arrangements which might be achieved, but I understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may add one further word. Solicitor-advocates have access to two excellent libraries. The writers to the signet have an enormous library, and the solicitors at the supreme court have an excellent library. The three libraries— the advocates' library and the two solicitors' libraries— have as it were common borrowing rights and share their books, so there is no problem for solicitors to obtain access to books, facts and consultation rooms. However, the barefoot pleaders who come in from outside have no access to any of those facilities. I do not see that, having spent several centuries acquiring their library and their rights, the advocates will welcome the plumbers, boy scouts and others who will be given the rights to litigate and advocate under the clause, or that the latter will be given access to their books and facilities.
New Clause 21 agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I think that this might be a convenient moment for a Statement to be taken. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Disorder in London, 31st March
4.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement about the disorder in central London on Saturday 31st March, which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"It is with a sense of outrage that I make this Statement today, outrage which I am sure is shared by all Members of the House. Right honourable and honourable Members will have seen on television some of the acts of criminal violence

1125
and viciousness which occurred and which no decent person could fail to condemn without reservation.
"At the end of the day's event 339 people had been arrested for public order and other criminal offences, including riot, affray and criminal damage. Three hundred and seventy four officers of the 2,198 deployed in the police operation were injured, of whom 58 required hospital treatment. Several officers were knocked unconscious. Others received head injuries, and one officer sustained a fractured jaw and is still in hospital and has either had or is about to have an operation. Eighty six members of the public have reported injuries, some being in no way concerned in the demonstration but bystanders who were attacked by the mob. Forty police horses were used. Twenty were injured. There have been about 250 reports of damage to property but the full extent of it has yet to be assessed.
"Turning to the day's events, at about noon the demonstrators wishing to take part in the march began to assemble at Kennington Park, and at 1 p.m. they set off. More or less at the outset a group tried to take over the head of the march, but the police and stewards prevented them. As, however the march went up Whitehall, small groups began to leave the main body and congregate opposite the entrance to Downing Street. A group sat down, partly obstructing the remainder of the march and encouraging others to do so. Most marchers carried on. Another group attempted to pull down the barriers and break the police line. Some arrests were made and further officers were called up in support, but the troublemakers refused to move on and increasingly the police line came under violent attack from missiles. Meanwhile the remainder of the march had been halted at the bottom of Whitehall and a previously agreed diversion was set up which sent them up Bridge Street, Victoria Embankment and Northumberland Avenue.
"The police had by then brought in mounted officers to help move the hard core of troublemakers up Whitehall and into Trafalgar Square; and when this was achieved a cordon was set up on the junction of Whitehall and Trafalgar Square. This cordon, however, came under severe attack from people in the square.
"At 4.40 p.m. the rally ended and most of those assembed dispersed peacefully. But about 3,000 troublemakers remained behind, the hard core having assembled near the building site at the corner of Northumberland Avenue. Scaffolding was dismantled and used as missiles. As police officers cleared demonstrators from the site, the site huts were set alight. South Africa House nearby was attacked, a window broken and a small fire started. Officers protecting the front of the embassy came under severe attack. Mounted officers were brought in to help; and using officers with protective clothing and mounted officers the police set about dispersing the troublemakers, who split up into four groups each of which then went on the rampage, looting shops and causing damage to property and vehicles, even attacking a car with
1126
people inside. It was not until later in the evening that they finally dispersed.
"All responsible members of this House and the country at large will wish to condemn unreservedly the disgraceful criminal behaviour which occurred. All responsible members of society will wish to join me in paying tribute to the police for the courage and restraint which they showed in dealing with some of the most ferocious violence we have ever seen on the streets of London. I should also like to thank the ambulance and fire services for the part which they played during and in the aftermath of the disorders.
"The police are now going to make every effort to bring to justice those who committed these appalling crimes. A team of 100 officers has been set up to take charge of this major criminal investigation. There is plenty of evidence available in the form of photographs and film to enable those responsible to be identified and I hope that all sections of the press and television will co-operate to the full with the police in the investigation.
"I have called for a full report from the commissioner on the day's events and he will be reviewing what lessons are to be learnt from what occurred.
"The right of peaceful demonstration is one which I shall always defend. But the scenes in our capital city on Saturday had nothing whatsoever to do with peaceful demonstration. Clearly a large number of people set off bent on violence. There can be no justification whatsoever for the savage and barbaric acts which millions saw on their television screens not just in Britain but sadly around the world. A clear message must go out from this House that those responsible should be brought to justice."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we thank the noble Earl the Minister for his courtesy in repeating this solemn and sad Statement. One could be forgiven for being near to tears when looking at the television screen and seeing what happened in our country and in the centre of our capital city. Football hooliganism is the enemy of football; political hooligans are the enemies of our democracies and our freedoms. They are the enemy, too, of the political decencies that we cherish in this country. Therefore all of us, as the Statement says, every Member of this House wherever he sits, will join in the condemnation of what took place and echo the words that our law has to be seen to be fully enforced against those who are guilty of conduct of this kind.
We must be careful of one thing, if I may respectfully say so. In his Statement the Secretary of State talked about the freedom to demonstrate and freedom of speech. I must say that I was very impressed by a statement made in the editorial of this morning's Times, which I venture to repeat:
"However peaceful in intent, such gatherings have offered to society's violent substratum the cover of crowds and a cause. Police, public and property are thus placed at risk. When risk

1127
turns to reality— as it did on Saturday— the call to limit reasonable freedom of speech and assembly can be strong. It must be resisted".
We are not going to give a victory to those responsible for those ghastly disorders over the weekend.
The Minister mentioned that an inquiry was to take place under the aegis of the commissioner. I understand that very well, but I wonder, because of the seriousness of this happening, whether he has in mind any wider inquiry than merely that of the police. If it is to be a police inquiry only, can we be assured that it will have the widest possible range in order that we may all know the organisations responsible for that violation of our rights?
I say that especially because I understand that on lunchtime radio an organisation, of which I personally know nothing, claimed not only some sense of responsibility but used words of glorification of what happened on Saturday. I have mentioned that organisation (to which I do not intend to give any publicity at all) to the noble Earl and I hope that its claim— if that is the right word to use but I should have thought that it was an admission of guilt not a claim— will be fully looked into by the commissioner.
I have only one other remark to make. From these Benches we join in the tributes that have been paid to the courage of the police and the speed with which the fire service and ambulance people helped them on what was a grievous national occasion.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. This has been a shocking episode. It was frightening for the tens of thousands of people peacefully out shopping on a Saturday afternoon. It was frightening for the staffs of the shops, some of which were invaded by numbers of looters. It is an extraordinary situation when on a Saturday afternoon in London people had to cower under the tables of restaurants to protect themselves from a wild, rampaging mob. I very much hope that the noble Earl will pass on through the commissioner our very best wishes to all the police officers who were injured on Saturday afternoon. The police, ambulance service and fire brigade carried out their duties with a high degree of competence, and I believe that we should recognise that fact.
Perhaps I may raise two matters for the noble Earl that I would describe as operational questions. I recognise that the commissioner will be involved in examining very carefully what happened on Saturday afternoon; but clearly a new problem has been created in that rioters moved into many parts of the west end of London very nearly at the same time. It is an extremely difficult situation for the police to deal with. No doubt that will be reviewed by the commissioner.
Secondly, I very much hope that the review by the commissioner will take into account the views of the British Transport Police. I have received complaints that on Saturday afternoon when some of the disturbances had reached their peak around Charing
1128
Cross Station, British Railways terminated its trains at Waterloo. It did not disclose why it was doing so, and a substantial number of people walked over Hungerford Bridge to find themselves in the midst of a small-scale riot. I hope that this particular matter will be reviewed by the commissioner and by British Railways.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl that I very much welcome the fact that there has been no suggestion of an amendment to the law. There have been calls— I believe they are mistaken— for a return to the provisions of the Riot Act. Those issues were reviewed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, at the time both of the Red Lion Square disturbances and the Brixton riots. In my view, there is no case for a return to the provisions of that Act, which were repealed in 1967.
Most of us recognise that a very difficult situation confronted the police on Saturday afternoon. In a democracy it is absolutely right that people should have the opportunity to demonstrate peacefully, and that the people who are involved in a peaceful demonstration should be protected from those who wish to create serious disturbances. But, having said that, one has to recognise that as a result of what happened, a large number of innocent people were injured and very substantial damage was done to property. To pick up the point made by the noble Earl at the end of the Statement, what was seen on television screens abroad, not simply in this country, unhappily did grievous damage to the reputation of this country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich, for their reaction to the Statement. It is a most unpleasant Statement to have had to make. All of us feel a sense of great shame and indeed outrage at what has happened. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether there would be any wider inquiry into what has happened. The best answer I can give is that in the view of the Government the only inquiry is a criminal inquiry investigating who was responsible for the criminal acts which took place. That is the main cause of the inquiry. That is what the commissioner will be undertaking. It will be up to the commissioner to make the inquiry as wide as he wishes.
I have no doubt that if claims to violence were made over the radio with a sense of gratification, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon said, with the distress that has been caused, that merely serves to point out the type of people with whom we are dealing in society. If those people can be found— and perhaps they can be found through the television coverage, photographs and so forth, of the event— then of course the commissioner will do his best to see that they are brought to justice.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris, for their congratulations which they asked me to pass on to the police. I willingly do so. I sometimes think that we do not realise how lucky we are in this country to have the police that we have. What they are sometimes subjected to is beyond belief. It is intolerable. There are those who tend to criticise the police. We should remember

1129
that they are after all human beings, members of society dressed up in blue, trying to help protect the law. When they have missiles thrown at them— scaffold poles, concrete— and when they are spat at, it is intolerable. When one reads some of the reported articles about police officers, if they are correct, it is quite alarming. One was said to have been "never so frightened in all my life. I thought that I was going to be killed. I feel battered, abused. I have been beaten before but never so badly as this." Those are terrible sentiments.
Another group of officers thought that they would be burned to death after a rag was stuffed inside the petrol cap of their car. An officer on horseback was reported as saying, "A rioter actually waited until I lifted my protective visor. At first I didn't know what had hit me; then I realised it was a brick." I believe that any society would find such happenings intolerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the rioters in various parts of London. Obviously that will be a matter which the commissioner will wish to consider. I am glad he felt that there was no need to amend the law. The Riot Act was repealed a short while ago. Frankly, I believe, under the circumstances, that if anyone had tried to read the Riot Act it would have been quite pointless.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the horrible injuries suffered by so many of our gallant police— to whom my noble friend has very properly paid tribute— can he say whether the Government are satisfied that the equipment which the police possess at present is adequate and sufficient for dealing with such situations; or are the police being asked to tackle very serious disorder and violence without adequate defensive equipment for themselves? In particular, will consideration be given again to the suggestion made after earlier troubles that water cannon, which can have in every sense a cooling effect on riots and rioters, ought to be considered, at any rate to deal with major troubles of this kind?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the equipment which the police have is extremely good. It is always being updated. Of course there is an endless demand and there must be a limit to any amount spent on equipment. However, I have no reason to believe that the equipment which the police were given on Saturday was anything other than totally adequate.
Water cannon has been considered from time to time but was not thought appropriate for two main reasons. First, the instruments are extremely ungainly. It is heavy equipment for going down streets. Once it has gone down it cannot necessarily turn round and it blocks the street. Once it has run out of water it is absolutely useless.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I should like to associate myself completely with what has been said by the noble Earl, by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, and by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. However, I should like to ask one or two questions
1130
about what took place, as seen with a sense of shame and revulsion by all who watched it on our screens.
With regard to the review to be conducted by the commissioner, perhaps I may ask what consideration was given to the routeing of the procession? The first question that occurred to me was: why was it allowed up Whitehall? Why did it not go via Northumberland Avenue? Was any consideration given to re-routeing? Clearly, as much of the objection and revulsion is directed against No. 10 Downing Street— let us be frank— it seems to be rather inviting those who wish to make trouble to do so if they are routed almost past No. 10 Downing Street. I therefore ask that that matter be considered very clearly.
It leads me to a second question. It is not the first time that we have had these difficulties. Let us not have too short memories. During the Vietnam troubles there were at least two processions as large as this. The first caused immense trouble and became out of hand. The second, some months later, did not. I wish to put on record that despite some of the doubts that have been aroused about the difficulties of the police, I have every confidence in the capacity of the police to control such a demonstration provided that they are properly operationally led with a good tactical plan. I ask the Minister to review carefully whether such a plan was in existence last Saturday. When I read some of the varied accounts, I wonder whether the same consideration was given to the matter.
I claim no personal credit for what happened at the time of the Vietnam war, but a special section was set up. It was led by a very distinguished police officer who prepared a plan and discussed it with those who were going to march, who knew what he would do if there was a breakaway— as we thought we knew that there would be— and who knew how to handle it. If the House will permit me to say so, it was a success that redounded to our credit around the world. Telegrams poured into this country on the following day. Some noble Lords will recall the occasion about which I am speaking when some believed that there would be just as much trouble as we have had.
Will the Home Office or the commissioner dust off those old files and review the necessary tactical and operational requirements? It is almost certain that a group of people who owe no allegiance to any party— and I hope that that will be remembered by all who speak about the matter— and who are only out to destroy our democratic practices, will certainly take advantage of creating mob rage. When the mob becomes enraged anything can happen even if that was not the intention. Will these issues be reviewed again and a tactical plan of operation drawn up?
I finish as I began. I am absolutely confident that there is nothing that the police cannot handle, if they are properly led and if there is a proper tactical plan. I ask the noble Earl to express what I am sure is the regret of all of us at the injuries that the police suffered on Saturday.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly pass the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, to the

1131
police. I am indeed most grateful for them. I should emphasise that the organisers co-operated wholly with the police. There was a plan. Indeed, as the Statement shows, when matters were found to be going wrong an alternative route was chosen in the middle of the operation. There was a plan. Clearly, the commissioner will wish to satisfy himself whether the plan was adequate or whether there should have been any improvements. The noble Lord asked whether we would take the files, dust them down and see what was in them. I would just remind him that that is essentially the commissioner's responsibility.
The noble Lord referred to the processions concerning Vietnam. I would remind him, in no way disrespectfully, that they took place 25 years ago when violence of the nature that we see now was not part of our society. The fact that nowadays violent bodies seem to wish to attach themselves to perfectly law-abiding demonstrations is a relatively new facet and is a changing one. I see the noble Lord is shaking his head. I will accept that he means by that that he does not wholly agree with me, but I assure him that in my view the nature of the violence which attaches to demonstrations now is a fairly new facet of which all of us— indeed, all those who set up the marches in the first place— must take account.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister saw the notices which appeared in various parts of London prior to the date of the march inviting the public to attend and saying that it would be peaceful. In view of the fact that it turned out not to be peaceful, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether it has ever been considered that the organisers of marches of that type should be asked to give a guarantee before the march takes place that the march will be peaceful, so far as they are able to do so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Gridley, but I think what he asks would be impossible. The organisers intended the demonstration to be a peaceful one, but no organiser can be wholly responsible for those who attach themselves to something which they have organised.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene but in view of something which the noble Earl said I should like to point out that the earlier riots to which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred were just as dangerous and violent as the one which took place last weekend. My memory also stretches back to the Blackshirt riots which took place in the 1930s.
I utterly condemn what happened the other day and I yield to no one in my admiration for the police, but the fact is that affairs did get out of control for a time, as a woman constable admitted on the box. There are lessons to be learnt in what happened not only on Saturday but on previous occasions. I am sure that the commissioner, who is primarily responsible, will be conducting such an inquiry in
1132
addition to the criminal investigation to which the noble Earl referred.
Perhaps I may add as a postscript that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was too modest when he said that he made no personal contribution to the improvements which were achieved on the occasions to which he referred.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am entirely happy to accept the strictures of the noble Lords, Lord Allen and Lord Callaghan. I can assure the noble Lord that the commissioner will be looking at the entire method of policing that demonstration to see what lessons may be learnt, as well as there being a criminal investigation.
Lord Somers: My Lords, when those who organised the disorder have been identified and finally arrested, does there exist any suitable punishment for them? Could they be deported; or in what way could they be dealt with?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I really think that is a matter for the courts.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, we share the revulsion felt by the noble Earl and all Members of the House over what happened and the disgraceful scenes which we all witnessed on television. Many of us in this House do not approve of the community charge but we accept that it is now the law of the land and therefore we must abide by it. But we also accept that we still have the right of peaceful demonstration and opposition, as I hope we always shall. It was quite obvious that a few hundred people decided on a premeditated attack and to use the occasion for their own ends. The violence, bordering almost on anarchy, of what we saw on television horrified all those who witnessed it. It must have been even more terrifying for those who were there.
I hope the perpetrators will be identified fairly quickly, that they will be brought before the courts without too much delay and, if they are proved guilty, that they will be given exemplary sentences. We share with others who have spoken our appreciation of what the police, fire and ambulance services did on that occasion, and we send them our good wishes for much more peaceful activities in the future.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. I shall see that they are passed on.
Earl Nelson: My Lords, as one who has served in the Metropolitan Police at the time of the anti-Vietnam demonstrations, I wholeheartedly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, said.
I am amazed that we hear of surprise and disbelief about what happened in our capital city on Saturday afternoon. Who was surprised? Were the organisers surprised? I suggest that they were not. Were the police surprised? I suggest that they were not. Were the public surprised? Again, I do not think so. Were the MPs who actively support and encourage the

1133
non-payment of the poll tax surprised? Again, I suggest that they were not. Why should we be surprised about this? We have had ample warning of what was going to happen. There have been umpteen demonstrations in our town halls, city halls and civic centres up and down the country for many weeks. The only surprise is the fact that nobody has been killed. If we go on the way we are I suggest that it is only a question of time before that happens.
The organisers of the demonstration publicised the fact that it was safe for women, children and old people to attend. However, in view of what went on, can the Minister tell us what guarantees they gave to the Metropolitan Police or the Home Office, or how they were able to convince them in view of everything that had gone before that the march could possible be peaceful? I also ask the Minister how many of those who were arrested were foreigners and, indeed, how many came from outside the capital.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand the concern of my noble friend Lord Nelson. We are all concerned, but I think that to say that nobody was surprised is overstating the situation.
I cannot tell my noble friend the origins of those who have been charged; nor do I believe that that would necessarily be corrrect. Obviously we have to wait to see whether those who have been charged will be prosecuted and what will happen. I should like to commend, if I may, the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who said that they may not like the community charge but they accept the law of the land and they accept also the right to demonstrate. That is absolutely correct.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we all condemn the vicious and murderous violence which took place in London at the weekend? My noble friend Lord Mishcon referred to the programme "The World at One". I urge the noble Earl to look at that programme and consider what was said. The person who was being interviewed was a member of an anarchist group, who confirmed that his group together with other anarchist groups— some 3,000 people— was responsible for the violence. What is more, he was allowed to incite further violence on that programme. For that reason I hope that the noble Earl will look at the programme and decide whether it was wise and reasonable for the BBC to make the air waves available to a representative of such a group for him to confirm violence and to incite further violence at some future date.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly make a note to listen to the programme. I think I can only listen to a wireless programme and not see it! If it were considered to be wrong, it would not be for Ministers to be the arbiters. It is for the BBC to decide what programme to put on and what not to put on. However, what your Lordships have said this afternoon indicates that those people are prepared to stand up and say such things. That shows that there are people who are out to disrupt society and to ruin and abuse the police, which is shocking. At least
1134
those people have come out into the open so that we know where they are and apparently the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, knows who they are.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, turning to a slightly differest aspect of the matter, can my noble friend tell me what, apart from insurance, pension schemes of the police and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, are the sources of compensation available to innocent members of the public who may have suffered personal injury or damage? What are the remedies available to those who have been hurt or damaged in the course of an incident of this kind?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the receiver of the Metropolitan Police will make available compensation in respect of houses, shop or buildings or their contents under the riot damages legislation of 1986 within the area in which he is satisfied that the riot has extended. He will issue guidance for potential claimants, and notification of the intention to claim should be made to the receiver within 14 days of the event. Claims should be made against insurers in the usual way, even if a person believes that he may be eligible for riot damages. Under the Act compensation does not apply to personal injury or damage to vehicles. Claims in respect of personal injury may be made to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in the usual way.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I also totally and unreservedly condemn the violence of Saturday. I condemn it for its own sake. I condemn it as violence. However, I also condemn it because it sabotages the widespread revulsion and anger against the poll tax being peacefully demonstrated by people from all over the country.
I join with the noble Earl in paying tribute to the police, the fire service and ambulance service. I am glad to hear him say that the stewards were co-operating and keeping the demonstration peaceful. I pay tribute, as I hope he will, to the impossible work of the stewards.
There is one particular question I should like to ask which follows a question raised by my noble friend Lord Callaghan. On Friday I was talking to some of the people involved in this demonstration. Having taken part the previous weekend in a demonstration in Trafalgar Square with far fewer numbers, when they told me the numbers they expected, I replied by saying that there was no chance of their being accommodated in Trafalgar Square.
They told me that they had applied to the police to change the venue for the demonstration to Hyde Park, which would have been much safer than Trafalgar Square. I do not know whether that happened. I am simply passing on what I was told. I know that the noble Earl cannot give me an answer this afternoon, but I ask him to make inquiries about that request and to communicate to the House and to me personally whether it was made and whether it was turned down by the police, as I was told.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is clearly up to the commissioner to decide where the marches and so

1135
on should take place. I do not know whether that venue was suggested or whether it was acceptable. That is a matter which is the responsibility of the commissioner.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, I hope that he will not, as he has twice this afternoon, continue to say that the decision is the sole responsibility of the commissioner. The Home Secretary has a responsibility for preserving law and order. Without interfering with the commissioner's responsibilities, is it not the responsibility also of the Home Secretary— and that responsibility has been carried out on many occasions, irrespective of party, by Winston Churchill onwards and backwards— to discuss such matters with the commissioner and offer his opinion as to location, route and so on?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to hide behind the commissioner. However, Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 empowers the police to impose conditions on a demonstration such as the route and the number of participants. Their imposition is an operational matter for the judgment of the police. Under Section 13 of the 1986 Act, the commissioner may seek the consent of my right honourable friend to impose a ban on a march. Therefore, it is for the commissioner to decide the route and not my right honourable friend.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have now gone beyond 20 minutes from the time that the initial reply was made to the Front Bench spokesmen. I suggest that we now proceed to the second Statement.

Manchester Prison: Violence
4.46 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement about the violence at Manchester Prison on Sunday, 1st April, which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
"At about 11 a.m. yesterday some 300 prisoners attending a service in the chapel attacked the staff present and took keys from them and the staff were then forced to withdraw. The prisoners broke out of the roof of the chapel and gained access to the main prison, where a large number of inmates had been unlocked from cells in order to be served with their midday meal. These joined the chapel rioters and violence spread quickly to the remand wing. Staff then had to be withdrawn from all the living areas in the prison for their own safety. Some 120 prisoners in the hospital, who were taking exercise at the time, were, however, secured and took no part in the disturbance.
"Meanwhile prisoners in the living area began to destroy the roof and internal fittings. Staff were forced back away from the buildings by volleys of slates and other missiles and fires were lit inside the prison. The emergency services were quickly
1136
in attendance and police were deployed outside the prison. No prisoners escaped. During the afternoon about 500 prisoners gave themselves up and during the evening and night more surrendered.
"My latest information is that some 119 prisoners have yet to surrender, while 69 prisoners remain in the hospital and other parts of the prison, safe and under control. Prison officers regained control of the four remand wings of the prison this morning. Some 1,363 prisoners have been sent to other prisons, and 95 are in police cells, as a result of most remarkable work by the prison service and the police.
"There have been widespread but conflicting stories from surrendering prisoners about the violence which took place in the early afternoon and claims that a number of prisoners are dead. It has not been possible to confirm these stories and to date no bodies have been discovered but the possibility that fatalities have occurred cannot be ruled out. The general picture is of prisoners indulging in violence on other prisoners, the full consequences of which remain to be discovered. Nine of the surrendering prisoners claim to have been forcibly injected with drugs and eight admit to having taken drugs voluntarily. Twenty four prisoners are in outside hospitals, one with serious head injuries and one with a punctured lung. None is considered now to be in danger. I say again that these injuries seem to be the result of violence meted out by prisoner on prisoner. Twelve prison officers were injured and had to be taken to hospital.
"I should like to pay tribute to the commendable bravery shown by the prison officers, who were faced with a fierce and savage onslaught, and to the courageous leadership of the governor and his senior staff. I also express our gratitude to the police for their swift response and also for their help later in moving prisoners from the gaol. I thank also the fire service and the ambulance service for their help.
"This is clearly a dreadful incident, all the more serious in the light of all that we have been trying to do to reduce the pressures on the prison system and improve conditions. The prison population nationally is now over 2,100 lower than at the same time last year and total expenditure on the prison service has risen by 20 per cent. in real terms in the last 12 months. As the House knows, we are engaged in a policy designed to keep out of prison those who do not need to be there and also a programme of refurbishment of existing establishments and a building programme, in which eight of the 28 prisons in the programme have already been completed. By 1992–93 we will have provided over 10,000 new prison places and but for incidents like this overcrowding would have been a thing of the past.
"Judge Stephen Tumim, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, wrote in his recent report on Manchester prison published last week that,
'life at Manchester is a great deal nearer what it should be, both for staff and inmates, than it was some two years ago',

1137
and commended the governor and staff for the improvements they were achieving. He concluded his report by saying,
'There was much more to praise than to decry in an establishment clearly going in the right direction and with an optimistic momentum'.
Sadly, the short-term consequences of this incident will be to worsen conditions elsewhere just when real improvements were flowing from the combined effect of our policies on criminal justice and the prison building programme.
"By a cruel irony, negotiations have only recently been concluded with Manchester City Council for the purchase of land for a major redevelopment of the prison. A new hospital was opened last year and the first 28 cells have been fitted with integral sanitation as part of a rolling programme.
"The population of the prison has dropped significantly since mid-1988. Compared with February last year, the number of prisoners held three to a cell had gone down by over 300 to only 123 out of the total population of over 1,500.
"Clearly there will have to be a thorough inquiry into this extremely serious incident. Because the incident is not yet concluded I do not believe that the precise nature of the inquiry or who should lead it should be determined now. But I shall inform the House as soon as I have reached a decision."
That concludes the text of the Statement.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is a day of sad Statements. With regard to the one to which we have just listened— we thank the noble Earl for his courtesy in repeating it— there are some questions which ought to be asked. Before I ask any questions, let me at once pay tribute from these Benches to the courage of the prison officers involved and say that we hope that some of the figures in regard to the injuries which they sustained are not increased. We hope that this dreadful occurrence will very soon draw to an end.
However, there are some questions which must be asked. The first is regarding the alarming figures circulated abroad and the wild rumours— I hope that is the correct description— of the number of people killed in this incident. Will the noble Earl bear in mind— as I am sure he does— the anxieties created among the families of prison officers and indeed the prisoners themselves? Is he able to confirm that communication is being made to those families with as much expedition and care as is possible in the circumstances?
Is it true that over the weekend letters were placed in what is called the "dead letter box"— where inmates of the prison can put in notes which are obviously anonymous but which can help in the safe management of the prison— warning management that some such incident might take place in the sense that there would be demonstrations? If that is true, is it also true that in spite of that warning only four extra officers were put on duty? If so, is there not insufficient flexibility in the prison service to enable,
1138
where there is a warning of that kind, proper action to be taken in order to ensure that the number of prison officers is properly supplemented to avoid the type of occurrence which took place?
I further understand that in a prior situation, namely before Fresh Start— which we were told was doing so much for the prison service— there would have been 30 more officers on duty than there were over this weekend? If that is so, what is being done about that?
The noble Earl, the Minister, was rather selective in his paraphrasing of the chief inspector's report made on this prison and issued only on Thursday last. Among the comments that the chief inspector made by way of praise, he also drew specific attention to understaffing, overcrowding and poor conditions.
I have some figures which may interest the House, and I address them to the noble Earl for confirmation or otherwise. On the first day of the chief inspector's inspection, as against a figure of 970, which is the certified normal accommodation, the prison held 1,625 prisoners; of that number, 1,116 were convicted prisoners and 509 had not been convicted; there were 296 cells with double occupancy and 82 cells with triple occupancy. Did not the chief inspector say that the occupancy by three men to a cell, completely unsuitable in this prison, must cease? Did not the chief inspector also say that many prisoners were in their cells with nothing to do for 22 hours out of 24?
We all listened to this sorry tale with deep anguish; but there is no point in our looking at things with anguish unless we feel that everything is being done to stop a repetition of these happenings and of the dreadful conditions that appear to be behind them, without of course in any way justifying them.
On that final note, I ask the Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that there is not a copycat reaction elsewhere in our prisons?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, again I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. This is a very serious episode. It is clearly one of the most serious incidents of its kind for many years that has taken place in the British prison system. However, is the noble Earl aware that those who know the prison governor, Mr. O'Friel, regard him as one of the most experienced and competent governors in the prison service? It is particularly fortunate that in the very difficult situation which occurred he was in charge of the establishment.
Is the noble Earl also aware that though he has rightly drawn attention to some of the more satisfactory elements of Judge Tumim's report, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, observed, it was a rather selective series of quotations? I think the noble Earl will confirm that the prison is still 60 per cent. above its certified normal accommodation. That is a wholly unsatisfactory situation making for great difficulty both for the prison staff and the governor.
Although undoubtedly there have been improvements, the fact is that we still have over 120 prisoners kept in deplorable conditions, three to a

1139
cell, with slopping out. Is the noble Earl further aware that there are between 300 and 400 prisoners at Manchester who are still wholly unemployed and that many are locked up for 22 hours out of 24? While we have such conditions in our large prisons there will always be the risk of serious disturbances. It is surprising that we have had so few.
I now turn to one specific matter which is of concern to me. I refer to the Rule 43 prisoners, to whom I draw particular attention. These are the prisoners who are segregated because they have committed, generally speaking, sex offences, which therefore gives rise to the risk that they will be assaulted by other prisoners. Has the block holding the Rule 43 prisoners been recovered by the prison staff? That is particularly important; all the more so given that there are rumours that a number of people have lost their lives and it is in that block that there is just such a risk.
I shall also be grateful if the noble Lord can tell the House what steps are being taken either by the prison department or Greater Manchester police to give information to the relatives of those prisoners who are still inside the prison. That is a matter of great importance, as I am sure the noble Earl recognises, and I hope he will be able to assist us in that direction.
Finally, we all recognise the immense problems facing the prison department and the Home Office. We welcome the building programme, but, unless we achieve further substantial reductions in the size of the prison population, serious disturbances are always likely in the appalling conditions in which many prisoners are still held in British prisons.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich, for their observations on the Statement. It is an unhappy day to have to make two Statements of this nature.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the anxiety about the number of prisoners who may have died. I regret that I cannot add to the Statement. I realise that everyone will remain anxious until we know the true facts. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the Rule 43 prisoners. I can tell him that the part of the prison that has been secured consists of the four remand wings. The rest of the prison, therefore, has not been secured, and that includes the Rule 43 prisoners. I am unable to give details to noble Lords on what communications are being held with the prisoners' relatives who have expressed anxiety.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that much has to be done in Manchester. Everyone agrees with that, but a great deal has been done although we accept that the position is far from perfect. Nevertheless, the amount of time now spent outside cells has been increased considerably over the past year. The number of inmates occupied in day-time education in 1989 was 194 and the figure is now 210. In 1989 inmates attended 17 courses; the number of courses is now 61. Inmates were involved in 65 working parties and there are now 69. There were 222
1140
workshops and there are now 270. Therefore, much progress is being made.
With regard to warnings about trouble, I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, what was put into, as he described it, the dead letter box. However, I understand from the governor that it is not unusual for rumours to circulate from time to time about possible trouble. Such a rumour was circulated on Saturday but there was no confirmation of a definite plot.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to staffing. The number of prison officers has been increased over the past three years by over 3,000; that is, nearly 20 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to overcrowding, with three in a cell. He said that that was intolerable. I agree. Every effort is being made to reduce that overcrowding. In February 1989 there were 459 prisoners held three in a cell. In the past year that has dropped to 123.
If there are other points to which I have not replied I shall write to noble Lords.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of some of the rather extravagent statements that have been broadcast about prison staff, can my noble friend confirm what was said on the radio at lunchtime by my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Mellor? He said that the staff at Strangeways is only three below establishment.
With regard to overcrowding, I welcome my noble friend's statement that the Government intend to pay special attention to the means of reducing it. In that connection will he bear in mind, especially as there were so many prisoners on remand at Strangeways, that about one-third of the prisoners remanded in custody, sent there by the courts, are either acquitted, bound over or given non-custodial sentences? Is there any way in which the courts can have those factors drawn to their attention?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, obviously the courts are aware of the position and are made aware of the position. However, I can confirm that my honourable friend the Minister of State is correct. On 10th March, Manchester had 532 officers in post, which included the principal and senior officers and specialists, and the target staffing level was 542; though that included three works posts which are not at present required.
I will certainly take into account what my noble friend said about overcrowding, but the difficulty now is that all the other prisons will be overcrowded because they are having to take the burden of the prisoners from Strangeways. I can now confirm that most of the Rule 43 prisoners have been moved out of Manchester.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I live in Greater Manchester and that I visited Strangeways in the autumn of last year? The noble Earl is right about the improvements that are in being. However, while I was there, as recently as last autumn, the prison was endeavouring to resolve a staffing dispute between the prison department of the Home Office and the officers of that

1141
establishment. Is it not correct to say that Strangeways is the largest prison in Europe, and certainly in Great Britain? I understand that it holds more prisoners than any other establishment. My noble friend Lord Mishcon touched on the most worrying aspect. I believe the Minister said that over 1,300 prisoners from Strangeways had been dispersed among the other prison establishments.
Before I came to this House I represented a constituency in Leeds that contains Armley Prison. It is a similar prison to Strangeways, though not as large, and has all the same problems of overcrowding. It is trying to modernise, slowly but surely. I ask the noble Earl to impress strongly on the Secretary of State in another place that, wherever these 1,300 prisoners are dispersed, adequate additional facilities and resources should be made available to the governors and the prison officers manning those prisons in order to cater for the extra work and to prevent, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, the mushrooming of these disturbances in prisons throughout the United Kingdom.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly see what can be done about that. All I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, at the moment is that there had to be emergency action in order to remove the prisoners. It is quite astonishing what the prison service and the police have done in having moved so many prisoners so quickly. Clearly, that throws a burden on other prisons. We shall have to see what can be done to lighten that burden where possible.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may put into perspective the terribly difficult task which faces those who manage the prison service. Will my noble friend confirm that from the beginning of this century until somewhere in the 1960s not one brick was placed on another for new and secure accommodation for prisoners? Will he also confirm that from the beginning of the century until now the crime rate has risen remorselessly? Does he agree that the Government have been successful in their tasks, in that the statistics governing the prison population and overcrowding are at last beginning to turn and that is a major achievement?
In order to improve on that achievement, will my noble friend draw to the attention of his right honourable friend the subject mentioned by my noble friend Lord Renton; namely, the remand wings and the very great pressure to which they are subject? Will he also bring to the attention of the courts, the conditions for these prisoners, though that is done frequently already? Will he also consider changes to the law which might reduce the burden on the Crown Court? I refer in particular to the change which, supported by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, I suggested when we were debating the last criminal evidence Bill. I refer to a change on imprisonability for certain minor crimes.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall deal with that last point first. I am grateful to my noble friend for referring to this matter. It has been the thrust of the Government's desire to get those who are more
1142
suitably punished in the community punished there and not to send them to prison. We are bringing in policies to make that work for the very reason that my noble friend has given. It is more suitable for many people not to go to prison. He is quite right that until a short while ago very little had been spent on prison buildings, but now a very great deal is being spent. The prison building programme has produced about 2,000 new places over the past two years and it is set to add a further 1,660 places in 1990-91. An additional 7,000 places are currently under construction at new establishments.
I know that this may not satisfy your Lordships as to the position at the moment; but, as my noble friend has indicated, it is at least a very considerable effort which is being expended in order to improve the situation. I shall certainly take note of what he said about remand prisoners.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I listened to the answer given by the noble Earl to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I was horrified to think what prisoner may still be doing to prisoner at this moment. There can be horrific bullying and as a member of a board of visitors I know what can happen. I ask the Minister whether it would not be wise to bring in the SAS now and put a quick stop to the present situation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the matter is not quite as simple as that. When a place is confined and in a state of turmoil, the first thing that has to be done is to restore it to a state of order. That is what is being done at the moment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while the condition of prisons and their general management are of outstanding importance and perhaps the most vital issues, this Statement concerns a prison riot? With that in mind, will he pay special attention to the comment made by the noble Lord who drew attention to the risk of copycat actions arising in other prisons? When he is setting the terms of reference for any inquiry, will he consider the possibility of examining whether the television cameras reflecting all that they see is a good thing? It was quite clear that in this instance the people on the roofs were taking certain actions and searching for publicity. The risk of copycat action could arise from that. Will that matter be included in the terms of reference? The presence of television cameras at a riot not inside a prison may help to identify people who can be dealt with later. But inside prison the people involved do not need that kind of identification. The cameras may well encourage them to seek publicity which could encourage copycat actions leading to more trouble than can be envisaged at the moment.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for not having answered his point when he referred to copycat actions. There is always that danger. Where this kind of activity is shown on television and there are television sets inside the prisons, the

1143
prisoners can see what is taking place. That may encourage them to behave in a similar way. It is impossible to say that there cannot be and that there will not be any copycat actions. Incidents did occur in four other prisons yesterday.
At Hull Prison about 120 prisoners sat down in the exercise yard. There was also a sitdown in the exercise yard at Rochester. A fire was started in the living accommodation at Kirkham, and at Lewes there was a minor disturbance. It is one of the sad facts of life that copycat actions may take place. Short of telling the television people that they must not record certain incidents of public interest, it is difficult to know how to stop it taking place.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say how the number of prisoners at Strangeways rose as high as 1,600? Can he tell the House at what point it is decided that a prison cannot take any more inmates? If the population is in excess of 600, it is remarkable how the overpopulation rose to such a high level. Can the Minister further say whether the staffing levels were those agreed under the Fresh Start programme? Can he also say what the programme was for refurbishment and the establishment of integral sanitation, and at what speed that programme was moving?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I could tell the noble Baroness what was being done by way of improvements in the establishment but at the moment I seem to have confused all the information that I had. With it I would have been able to deliver with great clarity the information that she seeks. Perhaps I may let her know the position.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I remind the noble Earl that he told us that 28 cells were receiving integration now for 900 prisoners, plus 600 remand prisoners.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the position is that 22 cells at the establishment already have integral sanitation. Work had begun on the preparation for restoring integral sanitation for a further 138 cells. The work, which involved taking only a few cells out of use at a time, was due to be completed by May 1991. It was the first phase of a rolling programme for installing integral sanitation throughout the establishment.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, for about 13 or 14 years my husband was chairman of the Gartree top security prison and during that time there was a riot there. Therefore, perhaps I can claim to have some second-hand knowledge of the problems that follow a riot and of the time which it takes to get back to normality.
We accept that more money is being spent on improving conditions and providing extra places. Unfortunately, many of those places have now been taken up by prisoners who have had to be evacuated from Strangeways. But is this event perhaps an indication that, however good those improvements are, they are still not taking place quickly enough to deal with the problems in our prisons? Is there
1144
any way in which the building and refurbishing programmes can be speeded up? As other noble Lords have said, remand prisoners create more overcrowding and generate even more ill will among other prisoners. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right and Fresh Start has meant that fewer prison officers are available in some of these touchy spots, is the Fresh Start staffing programme likely to be reviewed?
From these Benches we offer our support to the governor, to the prison officers and indeed to their families who go through this experience with them. We offer our thanks to the emergency services— the fire service, the police and the ambulance service— who have had to pick up the pieces.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. She asked whether it is possible to expedite the work. Clearly, the work going on is of extreme importance but it has not yet reached a satisfactory position. Of course there is still a great deal more to be done. The Government have embarked on the largest prison building programme this century. There are 28 new prisons in the total programme. Expenditure on the prison service rose by 58 per cent. in real terms between 1978 and 1988. The current financial provision is for £ 1,140 million a year, which represents a 20 per cent. increase in real terms over the 1988–89 figure of £ 902 million. Current public expenditure plans show expenditure increasing to £ 1,271 million in 1991-92. We have always recognised that the success of the prison building programme, taken with policies on diversion from custody, may make it sensible to turn the focus of our attention more to refurbishing the essential parts of the existing estate. That is what we shall have to try to do.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, while I have always greatly welcomed the prison building programme of the present Government, I believe there is a danger, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, of it being thought that absolutely nothing was done until they took office. There is a risk of overlooking what was achieved before then. I think of such prisons as Long Lartin and Coldingley and of my own appearances before the Public Accounts Committee to explain why they all cost three times as much as was originally estimated. It was inadequate but something was done.
I should like to ask one question about these events. Am I right in thinking that the prisoners would have been able to watch on television what went on in Trafalgar Square on Saturday? If they did, and if a violent protest was in prospect, what they saw would have done absolutely nothing to discourage them. As one who had some responsibility for the prison service, this episode has struck me with particular horror. I should like to associate myself with the expressions of appreciation for the action taken by the prison officers and the risks they have suffered in taking it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks about the prison officers. They

1145
certainly have had a most alarming experience. I note what he said about what was done before the Government came to office. I deliberately did not refer to anything other governments had or had not done. Indeed I would not do so, knowing of the noble Lord's distinguished position at the Home Office. However, I was bound to refer to the figures which I gave for straightforward reasons.
The noble Lord asked whether prisoners might have watched on television the events in Trafalgar Square I am not privy to what prisoners watched but my guess is that they have television and that they watch it. If they watched it, they probably saw what happened.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this was an extremely well thought out plan. The noble Earl said that the trouble spread quickly from the starting point 1o the remand section. How many of the prisoners who have not surrendered and are still on the roof or elsewhere in the building are from the remand section? Has there been a reduction over the past year in the time spent by remand prisoners awaiting trial?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot say whether there has been a reduction but I can say that 119 prisoners have yet to surrender. Prison officers regained control of the four remand wings of the prison. A number of prisoners have yet to surrender. They occupy a part of the prison over which prison officers do not have control.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, the noble Earl has rightly drawn attention to the courage of the prison officers in the situation that arose in Strangeways Prison. This was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich have pointed out that the conditions obtaining in Strangeways regarding overcrowding and the long confinement of prisoners in their cells are typical of those in all other local prisons.
My noble friend found it surprising that the situation that has arisen at Strangeways has not happened more often. I am sure that he would agree with me— and I hope that the noble Earl will agree also— that it is not simply a matter of luck that these things happen. Apart from their courage, prison officers show quite extraordinary skill in managing prisoners in those appalling conditions. I am sure he would also agree that a prison officer is not simply a turnkey. His job is largely a matter of personal relations, social skills and a partnership, if that is not too strong a word, with the prison population to make sure that, despite the appalling conditions, the prison service runs so relatively smoothly.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to that point. I do not mind admitting that it is something I did not realise until I took up my present office. There is a great association between the prison officers and the inmates of the prison. One tends to think that prison officers are just gaolers. If that were so the chances of trouble would be much greater than they are. The
1146
work of prison officers is skilled work, and when it is done properly there is a rapport, which is a perfectly wholesome one, between the prison officers and those in prison. That makes this kind of thing less likely to happen than would otherwise be the case.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
5.27 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 22 [Regulation of right of English, Welsh and Northern Irish practitioners to practise in Scotland]:
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 27, line 22, after ("State") insert ("after consulting the Lord President").
The noble Lord said: We are discussing the regulations which will govern the appearance of English, Welsh and Northern Irish practitioners if they wish to practise in Scotland. The amendment seeks to associate the Lord President with the Secretary of State when he makes such regulations and to ensure that the Lord President is consulted. We have had a good deal of discussion about the position of the Lord President. I believe that this amendment will recommend itself to the Committee. As I have been brought up never to go on arguing with a judge if he appears to agree with you, and as it has been indicated that this amendment might be acceptable to the Government, I shall say no more but simply move it. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am pleased to accept the amendment, which I believe will give the Lord President a proper role in assisting the Secretary of State when he is making regulations about rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation for lawyers from other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. In my view this role for the Lord President will sit conveniently among his present duties and the new functions which he is to be granted in relation to rights of audience for solicitors in the supreme courts and rights for non-lawyers to appear in court under Clause 21.
I should indicate to the noble Lord, who has a further amendment— Amendment No. 252— which mentions the same type of provision and which allows for consultations with the Lord President, that I shall also be accepting that amendment. Other amendments cover issues of consultation and propose the involvement of the Lord Advocate in the process. In view of the acceptance I now indicate as regards the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I hope that those further amendments will be withdrawn in due course.
Lord McCluskey: One of the other amendments referred to by the noble and learned Lord is tabled in my name. I refer to Amendment No. 254. The amendment draws attention to the importance of consulting the Lord Advocate, especially in relation to the behaviour of certain persons in the criminal courts.

1147
The Lord Advocate is bound to be consulted by the Secretary of State in relation to such matters. Accordingly, the provision I propose is not necessary. In those circumstances I am happy to accept the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I shall not, therefore, be moving Amendment No. 254.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Amendment No. 247 is tabled in my name. I also have delegated responsibility, if I may put it that way, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, in respect of Amendment No. 255. I can see the point of the Lord Advocate being omitted from the drafting of the regulations. It may be that Amendment No. 255 puts the provision in a better place. However, apart from that observation, I confirm that I shall not be moving the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 247 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 248 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 27, line 23, leave out ("practitioner") and insert ("practitioners").
The noble Lord said: This is intended to be a probing amendment. However, before I speak to it, I should like to know what is happening in respect of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. It is now 5.30 p.m. According to my estimate we have many hours of discussion before us on legislation— the title appears rather misleading— of great importance to Scotland. I should have thought that it would be undesirable for us to continue our discussions into the early hours of the morning.
I have some doubt as to whether it is appropriate to put forward such a probing amendment, but I hope to do so shortly. Clause 22 appears to say a regulation must or can be laid before Parliament for every individual from England, Wales or Northern Ireland who is to be allowed to practise in the Scottish courts. If that is so, it seems to me to limit greatly the extension of the rights of audience. I am not clear as to how long it will take if it is to be done individual by individual, or whether such individuals will be allowed to represent their case if it is refused. I am also not clear as to how the Lord President will set about this process. It appears to me to be a highly restrictive subsection.
Two points strike me as being worthy of mention. The first is that I understand the right of audience may not be exercised by a person in Scotland unless he is instructed to act with a person who has the right of audience in that country. In my day it was customary that if you moved from one circuit to another in England, you had to have a barrister from that circuit present in court with you. One of the first five-guinea fees I ever earned was in connection with a case in Norwich. I was instructed to go there to make a comparatively honest man of someone who later became Lord Chancellor simply because
1148
he was not a member of that circuit. It was purely a restrictive practice. I did absolutely nothing on that occasion.
However, I can quite see that in this connection it may be that the incoming barrister will know nothing about the law in Scotland. Will an inquiry be carried out in each case to ascertain whether the barrister does or does not know Scotttish law? If a leading QC from England takes a case in Scotland, will he have to submit his credentials and perhaps those of his junior, and so on?
Secondly, I notice that the Lord President may even prescribe how such a person is to be called; in other words, what his title will be. That seems a laborious process. If we are to have English, Welsh and Northern Irish barristers in court, I wonder whether they could be entitled to practise in Scotland on the basis, for example, that they were QCs or had undergone some training in Scottish law. It may be that that is the intention of the clause. However, as it stands, it seems to entail Parliament having to consider an order applying to every person from England, Wales or Northern Ireland who wishes to practise in Scotland and who has therefore asked for the authorisation of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, introduced the amendment almost as if speaking to a clause stand part motion. Perhaps I may take advantage of that fact to inquire what are the purposes of the first two subsections of Clause 22. It is fairly simple to follow subsection (2) and easy to recognise that it would be right for the English, Welsh and Northern Irish lawyers to have the same or equivalent rights to practise in Scotland that would be afforded to an Irish or French lawyer, who, presumably, would be an advocate. However, it is completely obscure as to why the English, Welsh and Northern Irish lawyers are to be treated in a different way under subsection (1).
The European right, if I may so describe it, is controlled by the Common Market directive. As I understand it, there is one directive in place at present but there are others which will be introduced. It is only right that the equivalent right should be available both north and south of the Border. There is no argument about that fact. However, the English, Welsh and Northern Irish lawyers are no more instructed in Scottish law than are French, Italian, German or Irish lawyers. There seems to be no reason why they should suddenly be afforded additional rights to appear in a court, the procedures of which they are not familiar with, when those rights are not given to the Irish, who certainly do not speak a different language.
The reason for the provision is not clear. It would certainly be wholly damaging to the independence of Scottish law if we were suddenly to have English practitioners able to practise in Scotland without any recognition being made of their lack of Scottish qualification. There may be a superficial attraction in allowing clients to instruct English counsel or English solicitors to conduct commercial litigation in Scotland. However, once you move into the details of procedure you encounter the differences.

1149
If I cast my mind back a few years I must say that I would have hated to conduct a trial on a criminal, commercial or even a personal injury matter in England where completely different rules of procedure apply. For example, in a criminal case, instead of talking straightforwardly about the crime of assault, having to talk about Sections 18 and 20, and so on, is almost the same as talking a different language. There is no need for such a provision. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will justify it when he replies.
Finally, if it is the Government's position— as set out in the consultation paper— that they have no intention of weakening the separate, distinct Scottish legal system, surely it is wholly unacceptable suddenly to import English, Welsh or Northern Irish non-lawyers to conduct litigation in Scotland. They would presumably be applying Scottish law in which they had no training whatever. That is allowed by subsection (1) because it involves practitioners who are qualified. If the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, multiplies the "practitioner" in line 2 of Clause 22, he must multiply the "is" in line 3 to "are". The difficulty of allowing non-lawyers, not educated in Scottish law, suddenly to practise in Scottish courts is an appalling thought and would gravely weaken the Scottish courts.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may raise a point of information. It is clear that "practitioner" is defined in subsection (6) as,
"a barrister or solicitor … and … any person falling within such category as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State".
Does that mean that there are two types of practitioners; namely, the qualified ones and any other person— unqualified— coming into the Scottish, system? I do not have a copy of the Courts and Legal Services Bill with me. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can confirm that there are similar reciprocal provisions in relation to Scottish practitioners practising in England under that Bill.
Further, is the reason for this clause that neither Scotland nor England, or indeed Wales, is a member state of the European Community? Therefore there would be the strange situation where people could practise in Brussels but could not interchange between Newcastle and Edinburgh because they were not recognised as separate states.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am a little surprised that we have become involved in a more general consideration of the clause under this small amendment. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that under subsection (1) "practitioner" is used in the singular. However, when we reach subsection (2) it is used in the plural. I accept that there ought to be a uniformity of approach and I shall take steps to ensure that that uniformity is achieved by way of amendments. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, indicated, if "practitioners" is used in the plural in subsection (1) there will be an "is" out of place.
I wished to deal with the underlying purpose of the clause when I reached my own Amendment No.
1150
250A. Perhaps it would be simpler if I reserved my position as I shall make clear why I am introducing an amendment to delete part of the clause.
Lord Grimond: I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. In view of his promise that he will look at the drafting, I shall withdraw the amendment. I was aware that I was trespassing on ground which we had not yet come to, but I did so in the hope of saving the Committee's time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 250 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 250A:
Page 27, line 28, leave out from ("litigation") to end of line 30.
The noble and learned Lord said: As I have just indicated, these amendments secure a deletion of part of the clause. They delete conveyancing and confirmation services from the scope of the clause.
The purpose of this clause is to enable practitioners qualified in another jurisdiction of the United Kingdom to practise in Scotland on the same terms and under the same conditions as practitioners from other EC countries. In this respect, it mirrors the EC directive on legal services of 1975. However, the terms of the clause as at present drafted go one step beyond that and enable the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the circumstances and conditions under which a practitioner qualified in another jurisdiction of the United Kingdom could offer conveyancing or confirmation services in Scotland. This provision goes wider than the terms of the EC directive and therefore exceeds the Government's policy intention. These amendments will ensure that the terms of the 1977 directive are reproduced exactly in relation to lawyers from other UK jurisdictions.
Since the purpose of the clause is to rectify an anomaly— perhaps I may confirm this to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay— a corresponding provision has been made in the Courts and Legal Services Bill in relation to Scots lawyers' practising rights in England and Wales. I hope that noble Lords will accept that these are changes which, in terms of the European Community obligations, we are bound to make. However, I hope that by our introducing these amendments noble Lords will be reassured that we go no further than those Community obligations require of us. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry if I said this on the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, but I repeat it. If the provision is to give the English, Welsh and Northern Irish Common Market rights in Scotland, we have no objection to that. It is on the understanding that the Scots acquire Common Market rights in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
However, I still do not understand what is the necessity for subsection (1) when subsection (2) says exactly that. What is the point of subsection (1) if it

1151
is no different from subsection (2)? Subsection (2) states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of enabling practitioners who are entitled to practise in England and Wales or Northern Ireland",
on terms and conditions similar to those in the Common Market. The noble and learned Lord will no doubt be able to educate me as to the point of subsection (1). Subsection (2) seems to cover everything that he said. I am totally baffled as to the aim of subsection (1).
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The arrangement is this. In terms of subsection (2), the Secretary of State makes regulations which enable practitioners entitled to practise,
"to become qualified to practise in Scotland on terms, and … conditions".
I think the noble and learned Lord appreciates that this is a matter on which the Government are out to consultation at present to determine by which route effectively such persons become to all intents and purposes Scottish advocates or solicitors, as the case may be.
Subsection (1) exists to deal with a rather different arrangement where people continue to be, to all intents and purposes, English barristers. However, in certain circumstances, given that they meet the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), they will be able to secure rights of audience in Scotland. For all practical purposes there is probably little difference between the two but there are two routes to what looks like the same objective.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry to be obstructive, but if we are only trying to give the same rights to the English— if I may take them shortly to cover the whole batch— as we give to the French avocat, surely all that is needed is subsection (2). If we give the English greater rights, why do we do so when it does not seem necessary? I regret to have to press the noble and learned Lord but I do not follow what he is saying.
I understand what he said originally and fully agree with him that the English should have the same rights in Scotland as the French, Irish and other members of the Community. However, he seems to be saying that this is different. I quite understand that the regulations have to wait until the final directive is adjusted, but I do not see the need for subsection (1).
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Where someone met the regulations that are required under subsection (2), the lawyer— be he English, Welsh or Northern Irish— would be a lawyer for all purposes.
That is essentially what is set out in the 1988 directive. Subsection (1) is concerned with providing particular legal services in a narrower area. The Secretary of State may, for example, by regulations under subsection (1) indicate what rights of audience may be allowed. That may be very much more restricted than the broader provisions which are allowed for under the 1988 directive.
Lord McCluskey: I believe the proper course is to accept this amendment and move on because the meaning of the term "practitioner" is important. Some of the answers that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has given in relation to the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Morton may not read very well when one considers the meaning of the term "practitioner" within this part of the Bill. However, we shall discuss that when we reach Amendment No. 255ZA.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 251 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 27, line 32, after ("State") insert ("after consulting the Lord President").
The noble Lord said: We discussed this amendment with an earlier one and the Government indicated that they were willing to accept it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 253 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 254 and 255 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 255ZA:
Page 28, line 13, leave out from ("solicitor") to end of line 15.
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment seeks to delete the words from "solicitor" in line 13 of page 28 to the end of line 15. I therefore seek to delete from the Bill part of the definition of the term "practitioner". The Bill states in Clause 22 (6) (b) that it means,
"any person falling within such category as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State".
The important thing about that provision is that Clause 24 contains a different definition of a practitioner. Clause 22 (6) (b) extends not just to English barristers and solicitors or to the persons referred to a moment ago by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as lawyers but to anybody at all. A practitioner is anyone whom the Secretary of State chooses to mention in the regulations.
In American jurisprudence scholars have discovered a rule called the gorilla rule. It derives from a riddle asked in America concerning where an 800 lb. gorilla sleeps. The answer is that it sleeps anywhere it chooses. That is the kind of provision we have here. It is a gorilla provision. It states that the Secretary of State may grant the entitlement to practise to anyone he wants. Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to allow pleaders who are not qualified lawyers in England but who are qualified to plead in England under the terms of the Courts and Legal Services Bill to practise in Scotland under the regulations which may be made under the provision which my amendment seeks to alter. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: This measure needs to be looked at. We are getting into a rather strange position whereby the Secretary of State for Scotland may find himself allowing people to practise there who are neither

1153
lawyers of any kind nor members of any recognised professional body such as patent agents but who may in some years' time enter the profession for a narrow purpose which is relevant to England. However, the Secretary of State may find himself obliged, in order to keep pace with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has provided under the Courts and Legal Services Bill, to grant rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation in Scotland where it would not be appropriate for such people as I have referred to to have such rights.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I understand it, this amendment is based on an objection to the fact that persons qualified furth of Scotland other than solicitors or barristers may in certain circumstances be able to practise in Scotland. I was specifically asked by the noble and learned Lord whether the Government proposed that such persons should be allowed to practise. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has already remarked, there is a parallel provision to be found in the Courts and Legal Services Bill in Clause 49.
Lord Ackner: It is in Clause 50.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that correction. I must say I thought the provision was in Clause 49, but I shall check up on that. That provision would allow persons from Scotland who have acquired practising rights under Clause 21 of the Bill to practise south of the Border. Subsection (6) (b) acknowledges that a person who has passed through the rigorous requirements to acquire rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation in the courts of another jurisdiction of the United Kingdom might be sufficiently qualified to do so in certain circumstances in Scotland. In that event it would be unnecessarily cumbersome to impose upon such persons a requirement to conform specifically with the requirements which govern applications for rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation under Clause 21. Without going back over the debate we had on Clause 21, I can safely say that I do not envisage that the Secretary of State will make many regulations under this subsection. Nevertheless, in answer to the question posed, I should say that it is the policy that there should be a proper cross-Border reciprocity. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that this Bill ties in, whether he likes it or not, with the provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Bill.
Lord McCluskey: With respect, the noble and learned Lord is in effect saying that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has for reasons which command little respect put in the English Bill a provision which no one likes and that therefore the Scots should have it as well. That is just absurd. I have endeavoured with great success to keep my temper even all day and indeed for most of the proceedings at Committee stage, but this provision will simply not do. No one wants it in England, but they are going to get it. Therefore it appears that we are to have it in Scotland where no one wants it either. I do not understand the logic of that.
1154
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate reminds me of the old definition of an ambassador as a decent man sent abroad to lie for his country. He is a decent advocate sent into the House of Lords to talk nonsense on behalf of his client. The advantage of being an advocate is that one can always tell one's client to plead guilty. One cannot of course, tell the Secretary of State to plead guilty, but one could ask him to plead insanity. That would be understood in relation to matters of this kind.
I am not at all satisfied with the answer I have received. I should like to know the justification for this measure. I hope the noble and learned Lord will not use the grounds that the English are to get it and therefore the Scots ought to get it as well— the equality of suffering principle, if I may call it that. What I want to know is the rationale behind this provision that would command the assent of a reasonable man who came upon it and asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to explain it to him. I want to know why persons who are not qualified lawyers in Scotland or in England and who are barefoot pleaders under rules applicable in England should be allowed to plead in Scotland. Does this provision derive from some EC directive? I believe it does not. I suspect it may even be contrary to EC directives and that it may be ultimately illegal.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Noble and learned Lords continue to defend their monopoly of the law in Scotland so skilfully that I have the greatest confidence that if I ever have to be defended by them they will defend me extremely well. The Committee must accept the fact that it is now considered that practitioners who act in conveyancing and who are not lawyers should operate in England and in Scotland. Other pleaders whom we are talking about now and who are not lawyers will also operate.
I am no lawyer but from my work on the European Committee I remember that the European directive applies only to lawyers. Part of our discussion on previous amendments related to catering for practitioners who would not be covered by the directive. We are now talking about people whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, calls "barefoot pleaders". The noble and learned Lords do not agree but many of us believe that there is nothing wrong with relaxing the lawyers' monopoly on the law in Scotland. If it is right that it should be possible for a Scotsman to plead in an English court I see no reason whatever why an Englishman should not plead in a Scottish court. I understand that that is what the amendment is about and no more.
6 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Lord Advocate's last amendment removed from the clause any question of conveyancing. We are now concerned only with pleading in court and conducting proceedings. If the English Bill contains a provision similar to Clause 21 as amended by the noble and learned Lord a group of non-lawyers will be allowed to practise in certain specified courts, in certain categories of proceedings and on certain types of business with restricted rights of audience.

1155
It is difficult to see how the specialised non-lawyer pleaders on Scotland will fit into a totally different legal system because it is largely the English procedure which relates to their competence. Is it the theory that someone able to appear in the English magistrates' courts in committal proceedings will be let loose in Scotland where we do not have such proceedings? What will he be let loose on? It appears a complete nonsense.
The argument appears to be based on the fact that we have Clause 21, although the noble and learned Lord says that no one is likely to be qualified to practise under it. Therefore, we shall not have non-legal practitioners in Scotland, but we shall have English non-legal practitioners landed on Scotland by the say-so of the Secretary of State. It is an odd procedure and I oppose it.
Lord McCluskey: With respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, does not understand the intention of Clause 21. It provides that the barefoot pleaders can be authorised to plead in Scotland if they pass certain tests and, in particular, if, having regard to the paramount consideration of the administration of justice, the Lord President believes that they are fit and proper persons to plead. Those persons who are qualified in England do not come under the jurisdiction of the Lord President of the Court of Session. In deciding whether they should be qualified in England, the Lord Chancellor or the apparatus which exists will take a decision. However, the Secretary of State alone decides whether they are fit to practise in Scotland.
Although I disagree, I respect the views held by the noble Baroness about the right of lay people to plead in the courts. However, it does not touch upon the central point that they will be barefoot pleaders who enter the Scottish courts without passing under the jurisdiction and oversight of the Lord President. They will not be subject to the fit and proper test, or the administration of justice test. That is the obnoxious aspect of the provision.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: With respect to the noble and learned Lord, we are returning to discussion of Clause 21. In a clear and articulate fashion he has made clear the reason why he takes exception to those pleaders. I shall not follow his description of them as barefooted. Given that certain provisions contained in the Courts and Legal Services Bill will allow those qualified under Clause 21 either to have rights of audience or— and I stress— rights to conduct litigation in England, there appears to be a solid basis for arguing that there should be reciprocity. It is on that basis that we go forward.
I give one appropriate example. It may be that on this side of the Border arrangements are made for patent agents to appear before the English courts. In such circumstances they will be enjoying rights of audience within a narrow ambit. If a patent agent secures rights of audience in England it is appropriate that he should enjoy rights of audience in Scotland subject to necessary regulations. It is not difficult to think of a number of circumstances, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton,
1156
appeared to be attempting to concoct, in order to show that that would be a curious arrangement. However, I suggest that a proper regulation is provided for under the clause to deal with those difficulties.
The Earl of Selkirk: Are regulations required for European lawyers to practise here? Are they laid down specifically and what are the terms? I believe that we should wish to have the same arrangements if they are satisfactory. Who will examine them? Is it a personal matter or will it be subject to regulations under which anyone can say, "I fall under the regulations and therefore I can appear in Parliament House"? What picture does the noble and learned Lord have in mind?
Lord Renton: I should like to remind my noble and learned friend that under the European Communities Act and the treaties which preceded it we are under a duty to "assimilate" our laws, which is the original translation. When we joined the EC the word "assimilate" was replaced by the English word "harmonise". I believe that the point made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk is relevant to our obligation to harmonise our laws.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I had hoped when speaking to an earlier amendment that I had indicated that obligations arise under EC directives made in 1977 and 1988 whereby the persons whom we are discussing are lawyers in their own countries. I accept that we have now moved on to another class of persons; namely, those who are not qualified solicitors or barristers on this side of the Border but who fall into the class of persons who might be given rights of audience or the right to conduct litigation in England.
I neglected to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that in bringing forward the provision I do not suggest that it is part of the discharge of EC responsibilities. However, I wish to indicate clearly that that is the situation when we are dealing with lawyers.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: In order that lay people may understand the argument I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, whether his purpose would be fulfilled by instead inserting the words,
"prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Lord President"?
Lord McCluskey: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has given the Committee its only concrete example; that of patent agents qualified in England. I understand that perfectly well. He said that they might wish to practise in Scotland, and I understand that perfectly well. They apply under Clause 21 and pass under the nose of the Lord President who applies the administration of justice test and the fit and proper test. That is the front door entry into Scotland under Clause 21.
However, let us suppose that they say, "That will take a long time. The Lord President, the Secretary of State and the Director General of Fair Trading

1157
come into Clause 21. How can we avoid that?". They look at Clause 22 and say, "Perfect. We can avoid the Lord President and the Director General of Fair Trading. We can avoid the test of the administration of justice and the fit and proper test. It is simple. That is the route for us to follow". I do not understand that. On my original reading of the clause I thought that it was something to do with the implementation of an EC directive. I came to understand that that was not true; indeed, I suspect that it is contrary to EC directives. I am not yet prepared to develop that argument although I hope that I shall do so later.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate now tells the Committee that into a clause which masquerades as embracing our obligations to fulfil the EC directives there has been slipped that back-door route to enable people such as patent agents to practise in the Scottish courts. That provision should be taken out of the Bill. Were it not for the fact referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond— that it is late in the day and the House in thinly attended— and that if I call a Division, vast numbers of persons will, as on the previous two occasions, emerge from the woodwork to vote against the proposition, not having heard any of the arguments, I should certainly divide the House. However, in this sorry state of affairs and although I have not heard any comforting words from the noble and learned Lord, I hope that he will take it away and consider it not in terms of the battalions that lie waiting to do his bidding but of the reasoned argument that has been presented.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall consider the point regarding the involvement of the Lord President.
Lord McCIuskey: That is not enough for me. If the position is not improved, by which I mean if the provision does not disappear on Report, I shall have to divide the House. The correct route for barefoot pleaders who qualify in England is through the front door of Clause 21— the greatly enhanced and improved Clause 21 which we look forward to reading in the fullness of time.
Lord Hughes: For the benefit of those of us who have followed the debate with great interest but little understanding, perhaps I may ask, what is a barefoot pleader?
Lord McCIuskey: I might say that it was a person who is qualified to practise in certain courts and certain categories of proceedings under Clause 21 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. However, for brevity, I have used the term which derives from North American experience, about which I spoke on Second Reading.
In North America the laymen were allowed into courts from about 1790 to 1875. They came in in vast numbers and almost totally destroyed the administration of justice. That is a well known fact. It is one that the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had in mind in constantly reaffirming his support for the division of the profession in this country. I referred to the matter in some detail on Second Reading. When speaking on the Courts and
1158
Legal Services Bill, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner was good enough to refer to one or two of the quotations which I used.
A barefoot pleader is therefore a pleader who is not an advocate or a solicitor and is not qualified by any conventional route in law but has aspirations to plead on behalf of persons in a field of law in which he may well have— indeed, commonly would have— a real grasp of the legal provisions that bear upon that branch of the law.
Lord Hughes: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I now understand at least that part.
Lord McCIuskey: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 255A:
Page 28, line 15, leave out from ("State") to end of line 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 22, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I wish to make one brief point. When we were discussing the Courts and Legal Services Bill, it was found necessary to include a definition of a barrister in England. This clause refers to barristers in England. I therefore suggest that a similar definition should be included. I can tell the Committee what it should be. A barrister means a person who has been called to the Bar by one of the four Inns of Court and has not been disbarred or suspended.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to my noble friend for that assistance with the drafting. I shall look at that point.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 23 [Rules of conduct etc.]:
[Amendment No. 256 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 257 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 257A:
Page 28, line 25, leave out ("General of Fair Trading") and insert ("in accordance with section (Advisory and supervisory functions of the Director] of this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 257B:
Page 28, line 25, at end insert:
(" (1) Where it appears to the Faculty of Advocates that any rule of conduct in relation to the exercise of an advocate's right of audience in the Court of Session is more restrictive than the equivalent rule in relation to the exercise of the equivalent right in the sheriff court, they may submit that rule to the Secretary of State for his approval, and the Secretary of State shall consult the Director in accordance with section (Advisory and supervisory functions of the Director) of this Act, and thereafter, having—

(a) considered any advice tendered to him by the Director;

1159

(b) compared the rule applicable in the Court of Session with the equivalent rule applicable in the sheriff court; and

(c) considered whether the interests of justice require that there should be such a rule in the Court of Session,

he may approve or refuse to approve the rule.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that rules relating to the supreme court conduct of advocates are treated in exactly the same way as those made by the council for solicitors for the purposes of ensuring that any disparity between those rules and corresponding rules in the sheriff court gives rise to no more restrictive a regime than is necessary in the interests of justice. The DTI White Paper, Opening Markets, which set out the Government's proposals for forthcoming legislation on restrictive trade practices, makes it clear that any professional rule which has been approved by a Government Minister will not be subject to challenge by the proposed competition authority. The relevance of those proposals to the debate is that certain rules of professional conduct made by the council under Clause 20 for solicitors with rights of audience in the supreme court will require the approval of the Secretary of State. They will therefore be outwith the scope of the proposed competition authority. Notwithstanding that the number of rules likely to be so affected would be very small, the provision ensures that no discrepancy emerges between similar rules applying to both advocates and solicitor advocates. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not understand the amendment. It starts with the supposition that advocates have a different rule of conduct for the sheriff courts than they have for the Court of Session. My understanding is that there is just one set of rules of conduct which applies to all courts. I therefore do not understand what the amendment can possibly mean. If there is only one rule of conduct, how can it be more restrictive than the equivalent rule in comparison with the sheriff courts when it is the same rule? It does not make sense.
It is also odd that under the rules of the Faculty of Advocates which require the approval of the court, the Faculty of Advocates, having presumably by inference failed to obtain the approval of the court, should have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State and that, in effect, the Secretary of State and the director should have the final say in the rules of conduct. It seems to be a quite bizarre amendment. I do not see what it is intended to achieve or to mean.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble and learned Lord wishes me to delete the provision at a later stage, I shall consider that. He might wish to talk with the dean of faculty beforehand.
Lord McCluskey: I think that I understand the provision better than I did before. However, am I not right in thinking that the difficulty is that it does not recognise the fact, referred to by my noble and learned friend, that an advocate carries his rules with him? That is why the same rules apply to him in the Court of Session as in the sheriff court. When he goes into the sheriff court, he has his rules with him.
1160
He there encounters a solicitor to whom different rules have been applied because of the exercise of his functions under Clause 20 by the Secretary of State. He is then entitled to seek to change the rules applicable to advocates.
Would it not therefore be more clear if line 4 of the amendment were to read:
"the exercise of the equivalent right by a solicitor in the sheriff court"?
That would then give the clause some meaning. At the moment the meaning is totally obscure for the reason developed by my noble and learned friend. I can see the reasoning behind it; namely, that if one wants a level playing field, the advocates should be able to diminish the restrictions upon them. I hope that they will not do so. I hope that they will say,
"These are our rules and we stick by them regardless of what other people— barefoot lawyers or solicitors— may do in other courts".
There is one other point which has not been taken on board by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. If he has the agreement of the Dean of the Faculty, I shall have to speak to the dean about the matter when I next see him. At the moment solicitors and advocates in Scotland are in straightforward competition in the sheriff court. They have exactly the same rights of audience. The rules for the advocates are made by the dean and his council. The rules for the solicitors are made by the Law Society.
At the moment there may be differences in the rules but I am not aware of them. I have practised hundreds of times in the sheriff court over the 30-odd years in which I was in practice at the Bar. I am not aware of them but if there are any differences at the moment they do not inhibit advocates from doing what they want to do. I do not see any reason at all for this provision. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate does not seem to think either that it is a very good provision, but certainly when he considers the matter between now and Report stage perhaps he will consult further with the dean and ask whether this is the right form for this provision.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Certainly I can say to both noble and learned Lords who have spoken that I do not think that there is any difference except that it is, to adopt the language of the noble and learned Lord, to provide a level playing field. As I explained, because it is the right given under Clause 20 to rules made by the Council of the Law Society, it was considered only proper that a comparable provision should be introduced in respect of advocates. We have a long enough Bill. If it is felt that this part might be deleted from the Bill at some stage, far be it from me to stand in the way.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The difficulty I have is that on 27th March the noble and learned Lord accepted in principle Amendment No. 223 which stated that the rules applying to solicitors should,
"correspond as nearly as may be to those which apply to advocates".
He accepted that in principle. If that is to be the principle, those are the Court of Session rules of conduct. Why should the lower court rule over the Court of Session? If we have that principle, which

1161
the noble and learned Lord accepted, why should anybody be able to say, "Ah, in the sheriff court we can act in a different way"? Why should that change the Court of Session? Is that not the tail wagging the dog? Surely the Court of Session should take precedence over the sheriff court.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether by using the phrase "any rule of conduct" he means any rules made under the legislation, or is he referring by that to the already existing code of conduct for the Faculty of Advocates? I gather from the answer that he gave to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that that particular rule will make life easier for the advocate rather than more difficult. But like the noble and learned Lord, I should like time to think about this point.
Lord Renton: Thre is a small printing mistake in the third line. The word "that" should read "than".
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I meant to point that out.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 257C:
Page 28, line 31, leave out ("restricting the extent to which") and insert ("prohibiting").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee it might be appropriate to deal with Amendments Nos. 257C,257D, 258 and 258B at this time. With the leave of the Committee perhaps I may make a manuscript amendment in Amendment No. 257D by inserting the word "from" before "forming". I understand from a conversation that I have had with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that in that form the amendments are acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Subject to the further amendment of that amendment, I am happy to accept the amendments. They would further limit the Secretary of State's involvement in approving Law Society rules. Rules which permitted multi-dis-ciplinary practices subject to restrictions would not require his approval. Therefore such rules in due course would be subject to the direct supervision of the com petition authority that we have proposed in our White Paper on restrictive trade practices. If that is what is desired by the Law Society, I do not object to the amendment. My offer to accept extends to Amendments Nos. 257C and 257D which, as I understand it, are the two amendments grouped together at present. So far as concerns the other two amendments, I am not quite sure how they tie in.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 257D:
Page 21!, line 32, leave out ("may form") and insert ("from forming").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 28, line 34, leave out ("in relation to any court proceedings").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment leaves out the words:
"in relation to any court proceedings".
I may be wrong, because it is slightly obscure, but the effect of this section as it stands appears to be that the Secretary of State will not interfere with any prohibition on multi-disciplinary partnerships (if I may refer to them as such) unless they are involved in court proceedings. It is totally unclear to me why it is only in relation to court proceedings that the Secretary of State and the Director General of Fair Trading want to consider the possibility of multi-dis-ciplinary partnerships and what they are supposed to achieve.
If one allows one type of multi-disciplinary partnership to solicitors and prohibits others, one will just discourage those activities which permit multi-disciplinary partnerships. There is already prejudice by solicitors from the financial point of view against engaging at all in court proceedings, whereas one wants to encourage it. I cannot see the purpose of those words. If it is necessary that the Director General of Fair Trading and the Secretary of State should have a right of veto on rules, I suggest that it should be right across the board— all solicitors' practices. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may just add something to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton. Another object behind the deletion is to make the new Section (3A) correspond with Clause 23 (1) in its application to advocates. As the Committee will note, Clause 23 (1) deals with the offer of professional services to the public and it contains no restriction, whereas the phrase "in relation to court proceedings" is a very limiting one.
The Law Society's objective is to get on equal terms with advocates because although advocates tend to concentrate on court work, I am told in fact that an advocate could do conveyancing if he so chose; but practice has it that no one has ever done it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It may help make for greater understanding of this difficult provision if I remind the Committee that this is not the only provision in the Bill that bears upon the formation of partnerships by solicitors. In Schedule 5 of the Bill is to be found the repeal of Section 27 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, whereby the statutory barrier to mixed partnerships will be removed.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling this amendment. I am very much aware that this provision possibly more than any other has caused considerable anxiety within the Law Society, which fears that it could have the undesirable effect of splitting the solicitor's profession into those who are involved in court work practising only with other solicitors and those who give up the right to practise in courts in exchange for being able to form partnerships with non-solicitors. That is not what subsection (2) of this clause is about; rather it is

1163
designed to recognise the potential for a conflict between a solicitor's duty to the courts and his responsibilities to other members of his partnership where those people are not also solicitors.
While the Government do not believe that it is in the public interest to maintain the existing ban on partnerships between solicitors and other people— hence the repeal in the schedule to which I have referred— they have acknowledged the need to make particular provision to take account of this area of possible conflict. It would appear that the Law Society does not favour the protection of restrictive rules about partnerships which this clause seeks to provide. The proper alternative is quite simple and would leave the Law Society to defend any restrictive rule about partnerships before the proposed new competition authority. There would be no ministerial approval to put beyond doubt that the rules were necessary in the interests of justice, however anti-competitive they might be.
The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord would in effect create a parallel situation since it would be most unlikely that the Secretary of State would wish to give his approval to any general rules made by the Law Society which prohibited partnerships. That would make nonsense of the removal of the present statutory ban to which I have referred. I do not think that there is any sensible half-way house. The choice seems to me to lie between removing the statutory barrier and giving no powers for Ministers to approve any general rules prohibiting partnerships or to recognise, as we have done in this clause, a particular area where conflict could arise and provide explicitly for restrictive rules in that area to be exempted from further attention of the competition authority.
The latter course is preferable in particular as it would put solicitors on a similar footing to advocates. However, I do not feel strongly about the matter and would be content— if that is what the solicitor profession wishes— simply to remove the statutory barrier in Clauses 26 and 27 and leave all restrictive rules to be dealt with by the competition authority in due course. In the latter case I would amend the Bill to remove subsection (2) altogether rather than leave it in the form proposed by the noble and learned Lord which I believe would be ineffectual.
I appreciate that it is an extremely difficult area. I suspect that the Law Society of Scotland may wish to look at the matter very carefully. However, I hope that by taking it at some length and providing some detail the noble and learned Lord and others interested in this area will appreciate what is intended by making the provision "in relation to any court proceedings" in Clause 23 (2).
Lord Morton of Shuna: I fully appreciate the intention. However, I regret that the effect is likely to be very different in that solicitors offering court work will disappear from Scotland.
I should like to read what the noble and learned Lord has said. I should also like to make it clear that I and, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, are
1164
expressing our own views which may happen to coincide with those of the Law Society. We are in no sense acting as advocates for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 258A:
Page 28, line 36, leave out ("General of Fair Trading") and insert ("in accordance with section 64A").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 285B:
Page 28, line 36, leave out ("has") and insert ("and the Lord President have").
The noble Lord said: This amendment follows upon our discussion of the proposal to delete the words,
"in relation to any court proceedings".
The effect of Amendment No. 258B is to put into the clause affecting solicitors the approval of the Lord President. The objective behind the amendment is to give the same scrutiny and approval as is contained in Clause 23 (1). I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I agree that it is desirable that the Lord President should approve of these rules. However, as we have seen emerging at an earlier stage, there is no need for this express amendment as all rules made by the Law Society require the approval of the Lord President under Section 34 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I believe that the matter has already been covered at an earlier stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Grimond: Before we part with the clause, if it is not going to be objected to, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate be kind enough to clear up my mind as a layman on one or two points concerning subsection (1). I find the negative drafting rather difficult to follow.
First, do I understand that if there is a rule that advocates may not form a legal relationship— as I believe there is— that rule will fall unless both the Lord President and the Secretary of State approve it? If one or other does not approve it, then advocates may form a legal relationship.
Secondly, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is intended that we shall end up with a general rule either for or against legal relationships that applies to all advocates? Or will the Secretary of State and the Lord President, advised by the Director General of Fair Trading, make up their

1165
minds and pick and choose between advocates. Will they make up their minds that one or two may form a legal relationship and others may not? In either case, would it not be right that Parliament should give some sanction if this very important rule in Scottish law that advocates may not form a legal association should fall? Alternatively, if that is not intended and the Lord President and the Secretary of State are to make up their minds as to which advocates can or cannot form a special relationship, should we not be given a general indication of the grounds upon which it is expected that they will make their decision?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord will appreciate, the provision at present is that at the Scottish Bar there cannot be partnerships between practising advocates. From what is proposed in the DTI White Paper Opening Markets, to which I have referred, if the Secretary of State as a Minister of the Crown approves of that prohibition against the formation of partnerships, in such circumstances the prohibition might continue and might be valid. However, the Faculty of Advocates would have to be prepared to go before the new competition authority and justify its reasons for establishing that prohibition which might be seen as too restrictive an arrangement. It might be bold enough and prepared enough to take that course.
It seemed appropriate that if the Faculty of Advocates wished to maintain that rule, and if it secured the agreement of both the Lord President and the Secretary of State, subject to the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading and approval having been secured, this would ensure that there was not the further involvement at some future date possibly of the competition authority.
The Earl of Selkirk: I approve entirely of what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said. It is not an easy programme to decide which provision indicates yes or no. From the moment that the Bill has Royal Assent, can advocates form a partnership? Are they free to do so?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No. The provision is this. There is an existing rule, as the noble Earl appreciates, that there should not be partnerships. If advocates wish to avoid having that rule subjected to the scrutiny of the proposed competition authority, they should secure the approval and agreement of the Lord President and, in these circumstances, and more importantly, the agreement of the Secretary of State. Once they have secured his agreement, then the competition authority would be precluded from subjecting it to any further scrutiny.
Lord Renton: Can my noble and learned friend answer a question that is almost too simple? Is the underlying assumption that the partnerships will make the Bar less competitive or more competitive?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am not making any assumptions at all. I am giving the Faculty of Advocates the opportunity, of which I suggest it may avail itself, to go to the Lord President and to the Secretary of State and secure agreement to its
1166
continuing with its prohibition on partnerships, because if it pursues that route it does not put itself at risk with the new competition authority.
Lord Ackner: I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Director General of Fair Trading said in a long written memorandum to all Ministers some two years ago that to advance partnerships between solicitors and barristers would be to take a major step towards fusion. Is he also aware that in the course of debates on the Green Paper in England the same director general said that he considered that it would be a retrogressive step, or words to that effect, because far from increasing competition it would have the reverse effect?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am indeed aware of that, and I think the noble and learned Lord may take it that it is the knowledge of that which at least in part lies behind the particular formulation of this provision. If I were to be advising the Fuculty of Advocates, which I am not, given the well-known views of the present Director General of Fair Trading it might be well advised to get on with the matter as soon as it is open to it to do so.
Lord Grimond: May I be quite clear? Are we handing over to the Secretary of State and the Lord President the decision as to whether advocates can or cannot enter into a legally binding obligation? That seems to be a very big step, and I wonder whether Parliament is right to delegate that. As I understand it, they would be free to do so unless it is forbidden both by the Lord President and by the Secretary of State. Therefore, it appears likely that this will come about without direct parliamentary sanction, and I wonder whether that is correct.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that I do not think anyone who considers this matter very carefully, particularly in the context of what is proposed in the DTI White Paper, will consider that this is an unacceptable handing over by an independent body like the Faculty of Advocates of a regulation or an important rule that it has and that is in any sense damaging to the Faculty of Advocates. If the noble Lord reads carefully what I said I think he will appreciate that this is something that I understand the Faculty of Advocates would be pleased to see on the face of the Bill.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 259:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to act for any client.
. Except in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to require him to do so any advocate and any solicitor or other person who has a right of audience in the Court of Session or High Court of Justiciary deriving from any provision of this Act shall be under a duty to act for any client or person who wishes to be his client (whether legally aided or not) in any Court in relation to which he exercises a right of audience provided only that such client offers to pay him such fee as is reasonable.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 259. We have long winter evenings

1167
in Scotland and I have managed to while away quite a few of them by reading the proceedings of your Lordships' House, in Committee and on Report, on the Courts and Legal Services Bill. I have passed many a happy hour doing precisely that. In my reading I discovered that at one stage there was an amendment which was approved by your Lordships, the amendment having the effect of introducing the cab rank rule for those who were not barristers practising in England. Modelled upon that rule, which is now enshrined in Clause 15 (3) (d) of the print of the Court and Legal Services Bill which has gone to another place, is my Amendment No. 259. It is not exactly the same because the circumstances have to be different.
I believe that a lot of humbug can be and has been talked about the cab rank rule. In theory, every advocate stands ready to accept every set of instructions which is thrust in his direction. In practice, one knows that not to be true. It has even been permitted until the present time for advocates in Scotland— and solicitors for that matter— to take their names off the legal aid list, which means that anybody who can afford to litigate on legal aid only cannot instruct a particular advocate or a particular set of solicitors. So the cab rank rule is perhaps not as watertight as some of its protagonists would claim.
However, the virtue of the amendment which I propose is that this now puts into statutory form a rule very like the cab rank rule. It imposes the same rule not just upon solicitors and persons who are qualified either in terms of Clause 21 or of Clause 22 to exercise a right of audience in the supreme court, but upon advocates. Those advocates who have in the past been able to avoid the cab rank rule for one reason or another, while paying lip service to it on public occasions, will no longer be able to avoid it. That is the great merit of this provision.
Others would say that it has the separate merit that was advanced for the equivalent provision in what in now Clause 15 (3) (d), which I mentioned earlier. I do not propose to develop that argument tonight because your Lordships have heard it and accepted it. Indeed, it was accepted with support from all sides of the Chamber. Accordingly, I do not want to take up time on this occasion rehearsing those arguments, but I hope that those who are more familiar with them than I am may be able to do so, at least quite briefly. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I rise briefly because this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 259A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, who is unable to be present today. He has authorised me to say that even if he had been here he would not have moved Amendment No. 259A and would have supported Amendment No. 259. In view of what my noble and learned friend has said, I do not need to add anything to that support.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: This amendment has the advantage that it does not lay down an absolute rule. The qualifying words in the first sentence:
1168
"Except in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to require him to do so",
give some leeway in considering whether a person would be bound to take instructions in terms of the amendment. It has been said in another debate that with the privilege of appearing in the High Court and superior courts there also go responsibilities. This would appear to echo that principle. I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: This is very similar to the amendment which was passed to the English Bill. My recollection is that in the English Bill there was something to the effect, "so long as it was within his usual practice".
This is of great importance. It is a service that the Bar provides in the cause of justice and in order to ensure that any client, however unpopular, has a right to be represented before the court. All the people who have practised at the Bar within my recollection— and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, with his name to this amendment because I remember him coming to the English Bar and to the south-eastern circuit many years ago— have been embarrassed from time to time by having to accept instructions.
If I may repeat an experience I had in 1938, I was commissioned in the territorials in June, elected to the Bar Council in July, and in October I was asked to accept instructions from a good London solicitor, who was already a client, on behalf of Hitler's Deutschebank. I found it distasteful to have to do that, but I consulted the chairman of the Bar at the time. He said, "You must do it". The only reason I was glad that the war came was that the custodian of enemy property took over the cases.
Lord Coleraine: As an English solicitor and in the absence of any Scottish solicitors being present in your Lordships' Chamber, perhaps I may say a few words without in any way speaking for the Scottish Law Society, whose views on this matter I do not know.
I am certainly aware that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Morton of Shuna, have practised as solicitors, but I think that long years at the Faculty of Advocates would perhaps render it invidious for them, if they felt a mind to, to speak against the amendments and against the idea that the cab rank rule should be imposed upon solicitors, whether in England or in Scotland. Of course, we are bedevilled throughout these debates by the fact that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in giving evidence as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates to the Scottish Royal Commission, referred to the cab rank rule as a constitutional guarantee. I need not go into that now but that is an assumption which should be questioned.
It seems to me that the argument for the cab rank rule is that there is some natural law which decrees that any advocate like a tap—
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but it may help if I say that I have

1169
indications from the Scottish Law Society that in its present form the amendment is acceptable.
Lord Coleraine: If the Scottish Law Society is happy with the cab rank rule in the form of this amendment, I shall leave the matter there.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should like to support this. In the amendment moved and passed on Report on the English Bill, eight out of 10 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary spoke and voted in favour of it. The other two were not able to be present in the Chamber. Three retired Lords of Appeal in Ordinary also voted in favour of it, as did the former Lord Chancellor my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, the Master of the Rolls and other very distinguished persons.
The constitutional reference is of course a reference to what was said in terms by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. There is nothing surprising about it because in the well known case of Rondel v. Worsley it was repeated over and over again with references in particular to what was said by Erskine as the justification for his defence of Tom Paine. I need not repeat that again.
It is also significant that the noble Lords, Lord Misshcon and Lord Pry-Davies, both of whom shouldered the Law Society's brief throughout the hearing of the debate, also voted in favour. In those circumstances, I need not speak at any length on the obvious reasons for supporting the amendment north of the Border.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Coleraine did not continue his speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, conveyed the news to us that the Scottish Law Society has accepted this, my noble friend obviously felt that he should not continue.
This amendment states that:
"Except in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable",
the solicitor must take on the client. What does that mean? What is unreasonable? As a lay person, that does not seem to be anything other than a tremendous let out.
At the end the amendment states:
"only that such client offers to pay him such fee as is reasonable".
It seems to me that all that has to be done is to say that the fee is not reasonable and that is a let out. We heard that about the rules for barristers in England. I was rather surprised to hear how many let outs there were. It seems that solicitors are also accepting that in Scotland.
I believe that the speeches which I heard on the cab rank rule in the English Bill revealed more and more holes in it. It was like a sieve by the time we had finished and I was not surprised that the majority on which the amendment was passed was quite small. I believe that it was a majority of seven. I am sorry that the Law Society accepts this. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate must be very relieved that, rather than his being asked questions, something is being agreed to. However, as a person who may want the services of a solicitor, I am not very happy about this.
Lord McCluskey: I should like to deal with two points which have arisen. First, in relation to the point made by the noble Baroness, the courts are very well accustomed to construing a phrase as broad and indefinite as this phrase using the word "unreasonable". There was a time in Scotland when regulations which were made to govern the sale of milk, eggs and so on at the beginning of the war were held to be ultra vires and unenforceable because they depended upon the concept of reasonableness. However, even in Scotland that rule has now been changed and the courts are always prepared to look at the matter of reasonableness.
To some extent, that involves looking at a particular case from time to time after the event. Someone who thought he was acting reasonably is held to have acted unreasonably. The courts are accustomed to dealing with such matters: otherwise a similarly worded amendment would not have been supported by the distinguished judges mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner.
The second point is that on the English Bill the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that there was a provision which referred to the obligation to accept instructions in cases within the particular personal field of practice. The reason that I deliberately did not put those words into my amendment is that in Scotland all advocates are generalists. We are willing— although I do not say able— to practise in any court, criminal or civil. And indeed, we are willing to practise one day in a court and the next in a tribunal. I believe it has been said before that that tends to make good judges. It may not, as in England, produce the excellent specialist advocates in highly specialised fields but it produces very good judges with an enormous range of experience. I hope that that continues to apply to those noble Lords who sit in this Chamber.
The last point is that the concept of reasonableness was one which I was happy to adopt because of the recommendations contained in the report by a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, some years ago. He will recall that he heard evidence from the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Wheatley, and the Lord President, Lord Emslie, who recommended that the legislature should not detail everything but should give broad principles. We should trust the judiciary to fill them out in the light of experience. That is the principle which I ask the Committee to adopt in relation to this. Therefore, I shall be interested to hear the reply of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he says that the courts are accustomed to interpreting the word "reasonable". I appreciate that because we often see it in legislation. However, from the clients' point of view, how long must he wait before he knows whether he can obtain the services of a certain solicitor at the price which he is prepared to offer?
Lord McCluskey: The client will decide that he wants a particular solicitor or advocate to represent him. He is then informed by the solicitor or advocate's clerk; for example, "I am not available. I

1171
am going to play golf. The client then goes to the applicable disciplinary body— in the case of advocates that is the dean and in the case of solicitors it is no doubt the Council of the Law Society and in the case of barefoot pleaders what the authority might be would depend on whether they were recruited from the Salvation Army or the Boy Scouts: I do not know— and seeks and obtains a ruling. What will inevitably happen is that rules will grow up and practice will grow round the rules. That corpus of understanding will extend to all those who practise and seek to practise and the public will be well served by such a development.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There are three potent reasons which speak in favour of this amendment but first, I deal with what was said by the noble Baroness and answered by my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey. I presume to agree with everything he said. English law and, as I understand it, Scottish law are quite the same in this respect. Occasionally, but not all that often, the law says that if you can prove A and B then result C will follow. Far more often the law says that if you can prove conduct at a certain level, then result C will follow.
In by far the majority of cases the level which must be proved is that of the reasonable man. I should think that 10 times every day in the courts that is the test which is applied, certainly in England. And, as the Committee has heard from my noble and learned friend, that is also the case in Scotland. There is no difficulty in applying the test of the reasonable man. It is absolutely fundamental to our law.
Having said that, there are three potent reasons in favour of the amendment, The first is that the classic statement of the rule was made by the greatest Scottish advocate we have ever had at the English Bar, Thomas Erskine, who went so far as to say that if it was breached that would be an end of the liberties of English people. Secondly, it was stated with great force and authority by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in giving evidence to the Royal Commission presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he described it as being of fundamental constitutional importance.
Thirdly, your Lordships decided that an absolutely parallel provision should apply under the Courts and Legal Services Bill in England and Wales. Not only that: it was almost the only debate on that Bill which took place at a reasonable hour before a full House of your Lordships. The matter was most cogently stated by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in spite of what he had said to the Royal Commission, endeavouring to controvert it. Your Lordships, having heard the argument on each side and notwithstanding the so-called payroll vote being mobilised against the English amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, decided by a majority that a comparable rule should apply in England. What reason is there for having one law south of the Border and another north of the Border? I therefore very strongly support the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: I sat down earlier, having been the first Englishman to speak, but I rise again because the debate has widened and extended beyond the question whether this is what the Scottish Law Society accepts or is prepared to accept. It has entered upon the merits of the cab rank rule. I refer to the debate at the Report stage of the English Bill when my noble friend Lord Alexander moved his amendment and secured the approval of your Lordships by seven votes.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred to the fact that noble Lords were whipped out to vote for the Government, But your Lordships should be aware that a considerable number of members and former members of the Bar voted in favour of the amendment. According to my recollection and my calculation 27, 28 or 29 members or former members of the Bar were sufficient to carry the Division, with a majority of seven, three or four times over.
However, I should like to return to the question of the cab rank rule. The need to ensure that the grossly unpopular defendant or party to litigation, whose very cause may be repulsive, receives proper treatment and appropriate assistance when he goes to court, both in the preparation and presentation of his case, does not justify or require the imposition of a cab rank rule, either as a general rule or to meet particularly difficult cases. I make that statement with the caveat that that applies so long as there are enough of the best solicitors, advocates or barristers bound in conscience. I believe that there are enough, have been enough, and will remain enough who are committed to assist what one might call the dirty, the unclean and the unpopulat underdogs.
I must also point out that the National Consumer Council, which speaks on behalf of consumers, took a very strong view, before the amendment was carried that the cab rank rule did not operate to the benefit of the consumer of legal services. I will not elaborate on the arguments put forward, but I understand that after the passage of the amendment in your Lordships' House, to which reference has been made, the National Consumer Council again met the Bar and the Law Society and considered their respective representation. They came down very firmly in favour of the total undesirability of a cab rank rule being compulsorily imposed on solicitors in the provision of advocacy services.
The Earl of Selkirk: If it is any consolation to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, I was at the Bar many years ago and never heard the phrase. I believe that it emerged from over the Border. The noble Lord may correct me as to whether it is used now; I do not believe it is.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: Perhaps I may focus on one aspect of the debate not so far emphasised— the provision that requires all advocates to undertake legal aid work. My noble friend Lady Carnegy mentioned the problem of securing an advocate to undertake a task for a fee which he regards as appropriate.

1173
I make my point simply by reference to one sequel to the discussion in your Lordships' House on the English Bill. I met a solicitor whom I know well and who has a good range of practice in the Midlands. He told me that the effect of the amendment might well be that his firm would decide not to extend its advocacy department. I asked why. He said, "We were hoping to extend our advocacy department, but in no way will we do that if it involves having to undertake legal aid work".
The obverse of that situation is obvious. If we had not passed the amendment he would have extended his advocacy department and declined to do legal aid work. I respectfully suggest that that makes the point that this rule is a very healthy discipline.
Lord Morton of Shuna: One of the reasons for proposing this amendment was adverted to by my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey and was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander; that is, to state, emphasise and strengthen the obligation on advocates and solicitor advocates that they should enhance their service to the public. That is something which is of great importance and has to be stated. That is why the rule is so important.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This matter has caused considerable interest. However, as my noble friend indicated, it clearly excites more interest among practising lawyers than among the general public. The amendment was indeed carried during the Report stage of another Bill, where the make-up of the majority was interesting. I trust that it will not draw any adverse comment when it reaches another place. That would be very unfortunate.
To have the debate at this stage in these terms is rather more difficult considering that we have already carried Amendment No. 223B, which stated that:
"Where a solicitor having an appropriate right of audience in any of the courts mentioned … is instructed to appear in that court, those instructions shall take precedence before any of his other professional obligations".
The council is then to make rules to establish the order in which he accepts them.
We had a fairly long discussion about that provision and I appreciate that a number of noble and learned Lords who contributed to that debate did not think that it was sufficiently clearly defined in as much as an order of precedence was to be created. Coupled with that, earlier we had some discussion, albeit brief, on Amendment No. 223 which related to the existing rules of the Faculty of Advocates. While I accept that I did not take that amendment on board, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, took at face value my undertaking that I wanted to look at the amendment again.
I can see that there is a relationship between that amendment which he proposed, the amendment we have agreed, Amendment No. 223B, and this Amendment, No. 259. However, if this amendent were to be carried, as was Amendment No. 223B, we would find ourselves in something of a muddle. For that reason I ask the noble and learned Lord to
1174
withdraw his amendment, or, if he is unable to do so, I invite the Committee to reject it.
The reason is not that I consider that there should be no provision made for solicitor advocates to follow something that looks very like the cab rank rule that applies in Scotland. Indeed, while I have not been made aware of the views of the Law Society on this amendment, I was well aware that the Law Society accepted that if members of the Law Society, having had training and secured the necessary qualification, secured rights of audience in the supreme courts in Scotland they should be under an obligation to appear for clients and that the procedure should be similar to the cab rank rule which applies to the Faculty of Advocates.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is right that we ought to be careful of what we understand the cab rank rule to be. My noble friend Lord Selkirk, in spite of the fact that he was in practice some years ago, is unsure of it. In recent times I have come across an area of the cab rank rule where I cannot discover exactly how far it applies. It is in that respect, as the two noble and learned Lords who have contributed to the debate will appreciate, that every prosecution in the High Court in Scotland is conducted only by someone carrying my commission as Lord Advocate. It is far from clear to me, when I ask someone to accept that commission on a full-time basis, as it operates in Scotland for a period of years, that as a member of the faculty the advocate is bound to accept those instructions. If that is unclear, it seems to me that sometimes the much vaunted advantages that are stated for this rule may require some further re-examination.
However, I rest on the point that concerns me. We should not degenerate into a position of some confusion and chaos in this Bill by accepting this amendment when Amendment No. 223B has been accepted— I have indicated it needs to be looked at again— and is alongside the spirit of Amendment No. 223 which we have already considered. For that reason I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: I hope we can now conclude this debate but I should like to add just a few words. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate asks the Committee not to put the Bill into a muddle; but the Bill started as a muddle and it has become steadily more muddled as we have progressed. Half the Bill has already been rewritten and the other half is to be rewritten in due course.
Amendments Nos. 223 and 223B did not introduce any principle which is known by current jargon as the cab rank rule; they introduced an entirely different principle in relation to instruction. In any event, the Lord Advocate has agreed to reconsider that provision and its proper wording. Therefore, that area is in a state of flux.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, mentioned the attitude of solicitors. I accept what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale that the same principle ought to apply, in a matter of such importance, to North and South of the Border, but its implementation may turn out to be

1175
different. If the Law Society of Scotland says that it is perfectly content with the amendment, what reason is there for not including it in the Bill? It suits the Law Society of Scotland and it matches the provision in England.
The consumers' lobby in Scotland has not lobbied me on this matter. I do not know what its views are in relation to Scotland. It has not vouchsafed them to me, though my amendment has been tabled for some time.
Finally, I said earlier that I would not divide the Committee. However, I have counted 37 Members in the Committee who have listened to the debate. I propose to divide the Committee because this is an important amendment and it will be interesting to count exactly how many noble Lords vote against the amendment, not having heard the debate.
7.16 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 259) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lockwood, B.

Addington, L.

Longford, E.

Airedale, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

McCluskey, L. [Teller.]

Benson, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mayhew, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morton of Shuna, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carnock, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Selkirk, L.

Grey, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayter, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brentford, V.

Arran, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Auckland, L.

Brookes, L.

Balfour, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Barber, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Barnett, L.

Butterworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Caithness, E.

Blatch, B.

Caldecote, V.

Blyth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Borthwick, L.

Coleraine, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Colnbrook, L.

1176

Craigavon, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cranbrook, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Crathorne, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Downshire, M.

Milverton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Nelson, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Greenway, L.

Phillips, B.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Henley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Sharples, B.

Hives, L.

Stockton, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ullswater, V.

Kitchener, E.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: This may be a convenient moment to take a break in the Committee's proceedings until 8.15 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.23 to 8.15 p.m.]
[Amendment No. 259A not moved.]
Clause 24 [Complaints in relation to legal services]:
[Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Scottish legal services ombudsman]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): If Amendment No. 262 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 263 and 264.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 30, line 26, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 263 and 264. They are grouped with my amendment, although no doubt my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey will move them in due course. If the Government are not prepared to accept my amendment I shall support the amendments of my noble and learned friend.
Amendment No. 262 seeks to remove from the Bill subsection (6) of Clause 25, which relates to the ombudsman. Subsection 6 states:
"The following shall not be eligible to be appointed as the ombudsman".
My amendment removes the whole subsection. I cannot see why, if they are thought appropriate, advocates or solicitors should not be available to be appointed.
What is required is someone who is knowledgeable about the law. As I understand it, the ombudsman will be a full-time post. If the Secretary of State, who has the power of appointment, considers that a suitable advocate or solicitor is the best person for the job, there seems to be no reason why he should not be appointed. The same would apply to a qualified conveyancer or any member or employee of a professional or other body. The effect of my amendment is to open the door to the Secretary of State appointing the best person available in Scotland for the job.
The Earl of Selkirk: I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and I do so for this reason. When the subsection refers to advocates, does it mean a practising advocate, or does it mean someone who in a distant age became a member of the faculty? The same point applies regarding solicitors and conveyancers. What is meant by the subsection? Are these men condemned for life never to hold this office? Have they become so affected by some terrible quality of mind that they are totally unsuited for this office? I believe that the Secretary of State would be unwise to do this. It will not be too easy to find an ombudsman. It is a difficult task. One needs to have as free a choice as possible. I should have thought that the director general might be involved here. One does not want to inhibit people from doing the right thing. I suggest that the matter should be considered very carefully before we exclude those who may be of value in this office.
Lord McCluskey: The amendment is technically defective because the words,
"and subject to subsection (6) below",
on line 44 of page 29 ought to have been deleted. That would have been the necessary paving amendment. However, I ask the Government to accept the principle of the amendment. I do not propose to speak separately to the amendments standing in my name, although I should be happy to move them if the Government were to indicate that they would accept that compromise.
My point is simply this. I have every confidence, as I am sure the Committee has every confidence, that the Secretary of State after consultation with the Lord President would not dream of appointing to this office anyone other than a person who is suitable. Under subsection (6) advocates and solicitors are ineligible. I should point out that at the moment advocates and solicitors are appointed to the Bench. On the Bench they are required to be totally impartial in all respects. If they can be impartial as High Court judges, or as sheriffs principal or sheriffs, why on earth should they not be trusted to be impartial if appointed as ombudsman? That is why I put down my Amendments Nos. 263 and 264 in relation to advocates and solicitors.
But I believe the general principle is the proper one. The Secretary of State after consultation can be trusted to appoint an appropriate person. It is a pity to limit his choice by saying that one cannot appoint an advocate and one cannot appoint a solicitor. I suppose the thinking must be that those outside
1178
might believe that someone who had previously had some connection with practice at the Bar could not be impartial as an ombudsman. That takes up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, regarding "advocate" as a description of a qualification rather than as a description of a career or a practice.
Therefore I ask the Government to remove subsection (6) from the Bill because again I see no reason why a person who acquired rights of audience by virtue of Clause 21 should be regarded as a person of such distinction eventually that he should be disqualified from occupying this office. For those reasons I support the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I should also like to express my support for this amendment. By insisting upon the exclusion of the groups mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is cutting out a considerable body of people who possess the very qualities which are required to carry out, for example, investigations which go to the root of the ombudsman's work. He is able to carry out an investigation, make an interim report, and so on, and reach a conclusion.
Advocates also sit as chairmen of tribunals, as indeed do solicitors, where they must be impartial and carry out almost the same job as the ombudsman is expected to do under this particular part of the Bill. I do not wish to go over the same ground covered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I wish merely to express my support for what has been said in favour of the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It appears to me from a lay point of view to be ludicrous to cut out a whole field of expert opinion in this connection. I say that because the consideration is not in respect of what the man does; it is in respect of his personal qualities. I support the amendment for that reason.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I should like first to answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. If he cares to read Clause 30 he will see that an advocate is defined there as,
"a member of the Faculty of Advocates practising as such".
The amendments would remove an important element in the whole system of self-regulation for lawyers which exists under the 1980 Solicitor's Act, the new disciplinary arrangements for advocates and the new and enhanced provisions of the Bill. Much progress has been made in the last two decades to open up the way in which professional self-regulation operates by the introduction of lay people who introduce greater detachment and the perspective of the client. That is not to say that professional people cannot take a broad and non-partisan view of complaints against their fellow members but, in order that the decisions secure wide public acceptability, it is essential that they can stand up to scrutiny from outsiders.
The post of lay observer has been in existence now for 14 years and in that time through the energetic and diligent efforts of the post holders has secured significant improvements in the way the Law Society handles complaints against its members and has, I am sure, been valued by the society as a way of

1179
demonstrating to the public that its investigations are thorough and unbiased. Of course the lay observer does not always agree with decisions that the society takes, but as successive annual reports show the disputed cases are very much in the minority.
The present statutory arrangements for the lay observer provide that she or he should be neither a solicitor nor an advocate. I believe this independence is essential for the credibility of the post and must be carried forward to the new office of legal services ombudsman which we are creating. The amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lords would of course not lead automatically to the appointment of a lawyer or other practitioner to the post but would create the opportunity.
I must say that I would have greater sympathy with what is proposed if the new ombudsman was the first person to look at the complaints. The provision is essentially a two-tier arrangement. In some circumstances you can go directly to him. However, a situation one would envisage that the ombudsman is most likely to be involved in is where one of these professional bodies has dealt with a complaint, doubtless it believes satisfactorily, but where the complainant or the client disagrees with that decision. It is against that background that it seems to me to be valuable that the person who is entrusted with the determination of the matter should be, and be seen to be, detached from the professional organisation which may be at the centre of the complaint. For those reasons I regret to say that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: The only comment I wish to make is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate carefully sawed off the branch upon which he was sitting when he replied to his noble friend Lord Selkirk. I say that because in referring to Clause 30 he pointed out that an advocate meant a member of the,
"Faculty of Advocates practising as such".
An advocate practising as such can resign on Tuesday and on Wednesday morning when he wakes he will still be an advocate, but he is no longer an advocate practising as a member of the faculty. Therefore, on Wednesday morning he could be appointed to be the ombudsman.
Therefore it is absurd to say that the only qualification required if you are caught by subsection (6) (a) is that you resign your practising certificate, so to speak, on Tuesday night so that you may be appointed to be ombudsman on Wednesday. Briefly the mechanics are as follows. The Secretary of State will approach a practising advocate and say, "Would you care to be the ombudsman?" The advocate will reply "Yes, I should love to be the ombudsman". The Secretary will then say, "I can't really say anything but between you and me because we are members of the same club"— or regiment, or golf club, and so on— "if you resign your office at midnight, I can assure you that by eight o'clock tomorrow morning you will receive your commission". Of course that can be done. If the provision is as daft as that, it should, like the other
1180
daft parts of the Bill, be abandoned and the rest of it could be printed as a postage stamp to be sent out at Christmas.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I take up the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey. From my own experience I have received letters drafted very carefully and very politely by the private secretary to the present and the previous Secretary of State for Scotland. Both letters stated that the Secretary of State was minded, if I would indicate my approval, to appoint me to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I replied that I was minded to accept the position if the Secretary of State was minded so to employ me. We continued in that frame of mind. As my noble and learned friend said, that is the end of the matter. If I was minded to accept such an appointment I would be minded to write to the clerk of the faculty saying that I was minded not to continue in practice.
However, on that basis— namely, the impartiality which it is necessary to demonstrate to the public— that is presumably why the current lay observer has completed an apprenticeship as a solicitor, has an LL B degree and is therefore qualified to carry out the job. She has done everything necessary except the actual enrolment and obtaining of a practising certificate. This shows the ludicrousness of the situation. The Secretary of State considers that the best person for the job is somebody who knows what, in her case, she was talking about. It was a correct appointment. But why take out these people? I think that the noble and learned Lord might reconsider the matter. It seems that it is a distinction without a difference, one that could well be omitted. Why make the Bill so complicated? If the noble and learned Lord intends not to reply to the point and not to explain why the qualified lay observer should be chosen, I shall withdraw the amendment. But it seems totally unnecessary to have subsection (6).
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend what paragraph (d) of subsection (6) means. It speaks of:
"any member or employee of a professional or other body"
—what is a professional body?—
"any of whose members has acquired any right to conduct litigation".
That presumably means that if any member of one's club happened to be qualified to litigate one would be excluded from being an ombudsman. There is the Director General of Fair Trading. Is this not a ridiculous restriction, not allowing the Secretary of State freedom in which to select the man he wants? Suppose he found out afterwards that that person was a member of a body any one of whose members had filed litigation. Is this not an absurd restriction which really cannot be defended?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: All I can say shortly in answer to that is that the language to be found in subsection (6) (d) reflects that in Clause 21. I am extremely fearful of again entering into debate upon that clause.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 263 and 264 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 30, line 36, at end insert:
" (8) In reporting his conclusions, the Scottish legal services ombudsman may recommend—

(a) that the person with respect to whom the complaint was made pay compensation of an amount specified by the ombudsman to the complainer for loss suffered by him, or inconvenience or distress caused to him, as a result of the matter complained of;

(b) that the professional body concerned pay compensation of an amount specified by the ombudsman to the complainer for loss suffered by him, or inconvenience or distress caused to him, as a result of the way in which the complaint was handled by that body.").

The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to the provision in relation to the appointment of the Scottish legal services ombudsman. The basic object of the amendment is to bring into force what is already included in the Courts and Legal Services Act for England and Wales, Clause 21 (2) (c) and (d). The object of this amendment would be to give the ombudsman power to recommend compensation to the person who has made a complaint,
"for loss suffered by him, or inconvenience or distress caused by him, as a result of, "
the matter complained of. The professional body concerned would also be recommended to pay compensation of the amount specified to the complainer for loss and so on suffered as a result of the way in which the complaint was handled by that body.
This new post is being created and will have a wide remit to consider all complaints relating to the services which were being provided under the Bill. That would cover a considerable number of bodies once various professional and other bodies had access to the court. At the moment under this Bill the ombudsman has no teeth whatever. It is pointless appointing him at all if at the end of the day when a person makes a complaint about the way his business has been handled, whether by a qualified solicitor or an advocate, he receives no compensation. If he is to go through the process of complaining to the ombudsman but nothing will come out at the other end in the form of compensation or even a recommendation for compensation, there is little point in him going to the trouble at all.
As experience has shown, people want an immediate resolution of their problem and some compensation for what has been done to them by the professional person. A court is the last place where a person who has been wronged by legal services in whatever form will want to go. That would mean him depending on the system of which he is already mistrustful, it having let him down. It would be an important shot in the arm for the post of ombudsman if the proposed amendment were inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: We have already decided that the legal services ombudsman will have no legal qualification whatever. If that is so, it is difficult to see how he or she will be able to assess compensation in any way. It is interesting to note that the present lay observer, when this power was proposed, did not desire the power at all.
I had the pleasure of steering the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1988 through this House, thankfully without any opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will no doubt bear in mind that under that Act solicitors were given power to make sure that solicitors gave compensation and made that order. That was the purpose of the legislation; it was why the ombudsman's power is not necessary. I suggest that to give this power to the ombudsman, who is apparently to take over wide-ranging powers without this, would be totally unnecessary. It is not clear whether there would be any power of appeal or, if so, to whom. It seems proper that any question of assessment of compensation, if it cannot be assessed otherwise, should be left to the courts. I therefore oppose the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is a very important amendment. The powers which the Lord Chancellor seeks to enable the legal services ombudsman in England and Wales to make recommendations about compensation are targeted on high levels of client dissatisfaction there with the way in which the complaints system is operating. It has been clear for some time that the reforms of the complaints procedures for solicitors introduced in England and Wales in the mid 1980s have not been a great success. Backlogs threatened to choke the system and client satisfaction has not significantly improved; further change was therefore called for. In Scotland, by contrast, reform came later and it is now little over a year since the Law Society of Scotland gained access to the new shoddy work powers and remedies conferred on it by the Solicitors Act 1988, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, has just referred. I hope he will not fall off the Bench if I say that I entirely agree with him that it may be too early to judge the full effect of these changes. But the early indications are favourable.
The Law Society appears to be achieving high rates of success in disposing of complaints about inadequate services to the satisfaction of clients and in many cases without recourse to its substantial powers to enforce decisions. A substantial number of cases have concluded with the repayment of fees and outlays to clients for which that Act provided. I accept that compensation for inconvenience is something different but I think what matters is how the client feels at the end of the process. If he is not content with the outcome he can take the matter up with the lay observer or, in future, the ombudsman. It is still too soon to tell how many dissatisfied clients will feel the need to approach the lay observer because of the time lag between a complaint first being made and the lay observer becoming involved. From preliminary indications I would, however, be surprised if there was such a degree of dissatisfaction as to justify another substantial change so soon after the last one. And the change proposed by this

1183
amendment would indeed be substantial, since it would involve the ombudsman in the whole complex business of quantifying a client's loss. As the noble and learned Lord has indicated, the previous, recently retired lay observer for Scotland indicated her concern that she should not be entrusted with such powers.
I indicated to the noble Lord that I considered that this was an important matter because we are following a different route in Scotland. However, it seems to me that there is a substantial argument for taking that different approach. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I must apologise to the present lay observer for changing his sex. The lay observer is masculine. I should indicate my gratitude that for once the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I are on the same line.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I would find it surprising if the person appointed to this important post was someone who was incapable of assessing compensation in the kind of matters which would come before him. I appreciate the argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on the distinction between the two countries. No doubt in the short time that will be left to the Government in office after the Bill becomes law they will keep a close eye on developments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 265A:
Page 53, line 13, leave out ("Minister for the Civil Service") and insert ("Treasury").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Judicial appointments]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 265B:
Page 31, line 2, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord President").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 265C. If the Government intend to accept them, I shall not take up any time dealing with the matter. However, the purpose of the amendments is to bring the appropriate provision in Clause 26 into line with the corresponding provision in Section 22 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 which allowed the re-employment of retired judges. Section 22 (1) stated:
"If it appears to the Lord President of the Court of Session that it is expedient as a temporary measure to make an appointment
1184
under this section … he may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, appoint a person"
who has certain qualifications. It appears to me and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, who asked me to speak on his behalf in this regard, that the proper course in relation to the appointment of temporary judges is the same as that applied in relation to the re-employment of retired judges. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble and learned Lord has referred to Section 22 of the 1985 Act. I accept that at first sight that appears to be the most appropriate analogy because those who would be appointed as temporary judges would serve either in the High Court of Justiciary or in the Court of Session. However, the situation is not as simple as that because those who are retired judges have previously received their commissions from the Crown. In those circumstances it is wholly appropriate for the Lord President to take the leading role, albeit with the consent of the Secretary of State, who has responsibilities for the funding of the supreme courts.
However, those who are to be appointed as temporary judges would not previously have received any commission from the Crown. In those circumstances, while it concerns a lower court, the closest analogy we have at present is that of temporary sheriffs principal. Sheriffs principal are of course appointed by Her Majesty while temporary sheriffs principal are appointed by the Secretary of State. Experience has shown that, when required, temporary sheriffs principal can be appointed very quickly and, so far as I am aware, no criticisms have been levelled at those arrangements. However, it is essentially for constitutional reasons that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment. But I should like to take the opportunity to indicate that if temporary judges are to be used by the Lord President from time to time, the arrangements that we would propose for that would be of such a character that we do not envisage that there would be any undue delay in their appointment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The analogy with the sheriffs principal is incorrect as sheriffs principal are different. A sheriff principal is only one person who covers one area. The appointment of temporary judges in the Court of Session and in the High Court means that for one reason or another there is a shortage of judges at the time. That is not the reason which applies to the appointment of a temporary sheriff principal. The reason for that is that the sheriff principal suddenly dies or becomes incapacitated. The only person who would know of this need for temporary judges is the Lord President. He would have to be the activator of any appointment.
The amendment standing in the names of the noble and learned Lords, Lord McCluskey and Lord Emslie, has a lot of strength to it, especially when one considers the experience of operating Section 22 of the 1985 Act. That has worked well. Therefore, it would appear to be putting the cart before the horse to state that the Secretary of State is the first person to notice the shortage of judges. I suggest that the

1185
noble and learned Lord should take this matter away and think about it again.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: There is some force in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said. I had not appreciated that constitutional dimension of the: matter. However, my instinctive feeling is that we do not need this provision at all as regards the appointment of temporary judges because judges retire and die at such a rate that one could always just appoint an additional judge and then not reappoint his successor. One gets over temporary humps in that fashion in Scotland. I do not like the idea of temporary judges at all, but I should certainly like to discuss further with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, the reply that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has given because it raised a point that I have not discussed with him. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265C not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 266:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Retired Sheriffs
. For section 3 (3) of the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1961 there shall be substituted—
(3) In the case of a person retiring from the office of salaried Sheriff-substitute the amount of his pension shall be as follows, that is to say—

(a) if the period of service does not amount to 5 years, 6/40ths of his last annual salary;

(b) if the period of service amounts to 5 years or more, one-quarter of that salary plus l/40th for each completed year of service exceeding 5;

(c) where the period of service is 15 years or more, one-half of his last annual salary".").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a lengthy amendment, as the Committee will see. Its purpose is to introduce into Scotland equality of provision for sheriffs with certain others in relation to their pensions and the pensions that may go to their widows or widowers. The Committee may recall that in the Courts and Legal Services Bill, on I believe 15th February of this year, a similar amendment was moved and discussed by the Chamber. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking that he would look at the matter within some months in relation to the judges who were covered by the amendment that was proposed by, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. Finally the amendment was withdrawn.
My amendment is mutatis mutandis the same for Scotland, although it endeavours to remove one or two other anomalies. I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee at this hour of the night because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was good enough to approach me and tell me that he was prepared to give a broadly similar undertaking so that the matter would be looked at at the same time as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was considering the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and others in
1186
February. In the hope that that is the case, I propose to say no more at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble and learned Lord has been good enough to indicate, we have had the opportunity to discuss this matter briefly. The need for a range of changes to the judicial pension schemes has been examined by Ministers in various departments in the United Kingdom who have an interest in these matters. It has emerged clearly from the examination that, not least due to the sheer complexity of the various schemes, a piecemeal approach would be totally inappropriate. Accordingly, as announced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this Chamber on I believe 15th February of this year, the Government have decided that the whole situation calls for a radical examination. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said (at col. 649 of Hansard of 5th February):
"I can inform the Committee that along with my officials I hope to undertake such an exercise within the next few months in the hope that we shall be able to come forward with a revised scheme as soon as legislative time permits".
I know that there is concern about the arrangements particularly among the sheriffs in Scotland. I emphasise to the noble and learned Lord that the work on a revised scheme is not singularly for England and Wales but for the whole of the United Kingdom. Work has already started on producing a revised scheme although, undoubtedly, it is a complex matter. Production of a new scheme will take some time, but I stress that the work has already begun.
Lord McCluskey: I am happy to receive the observations of the Lord Advocate. However, one must appreciate that an expression such as "within a few months" presents an elastic notion. There are anomalies which are addressed by my amendment and which could be put right without undue delay. That applies particularly in relation to the qualifying period for a full pension. It is unfortunate that these issues have been allowed to continue in their present state for so long. They were not first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in 1990; they have been raised repeatedly over the years by the Top Salaries Review Body. This is a long saga and it is time that justice was done. However, in the light of the assurances which I am happy to accept, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 267 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Judicial Appointments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 267A:
Page 54, line 1, leave out ("20 of this Act") and insert ("25A (rights of audience) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 267B:
Page 54, line 2, leave out ("5") and insert ("10").
The noble Lord said: The amendment covers the qualifying period for the appointment of judges under Schedule 3. Amendment No. 268 proposes to insert 15 years. Amendment No. 267B is put before the Committee to decide whether the qualifying period of five years is too short and whether a longer qualifying period for rights of audience before the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary may not be more appropriate. Qualifications for appointment as a High Court judge in the Court of Session are such that five years' experience in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary is not sufficiently long. A period of 10 years would strike a happy medium and give the person a chance not only to learn the ways of a court but to assimilate experience which he can put to good use if and when he is appointed to the Bench. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 268 in which my noble and learned friends Lord McCluskey and Lord Emslie and I suggest leaving out "5" and inserting "15". As I said on Second Reading, the provision is daft, to use the kindest word. No advocate or solicitor can be appointed a sheriff or a sheriff principal until he has served 10 years. Paragraph 1 (a) provides that
"sheriffs principal and sheriffs who have held office as such for a continous period of not less than 5 years"
can be appointed to the Court of Session Bench. If those gentlemen work at top speed they can do so in 15 years. That is 15 years as a continuous, full-time practitioner with judicial experience. However, the part-time solicitor must have held office for a continuous period of not less than five years in order to gain the right of audience. I suggest that when the period of appointment for a sheriff is 10 years it is ludicrous to have five years as the period of appointment for the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary, which are the superior courts.
Perhaps the reason advanced is Article 19 of the Act of Union. No doubt the parliamentary draftsman and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate have studied that with great care. It provides for solicitors to be appointed to the Court of Session Bench. Solicitors are called writers to the signet. They can be admitted if they have been:
"Writer to the Signet for the space of ten years With the provision That no Writer to the Signet be capable of being admitted a Lord of the Session unless he undergo a private and publick Tryal on the Civil Law before the Faculty of Advocates and be found by them qualified for said Office two years before he be named to be a Lord of the Session".
By what right is the noble and learned Lord amending the Act of Union by reducing the qualification of solicitors from 12 to five years? It is extraordinary. One finds the power to do so because Article 19 continues:
"yet so as the Qualifications made or to be made for capacitating persons to be named Ordinary Lords of Session may be altered by the Parliament of Great Britain".
That is one provision of the Act of Union which specifically provides for this Parliament to alter it.
1188
We must presume that in their wisdom the Government consider that in order to become a Court of Session judge one should have only half the qualification in time that is required to become a sheriff. In addition, that period of time can be part time. It is a ludicrous provision. It offends against the Act of Union. It also offends against reality because I doubt whether during the past 250 years— at least since hereditary jurisdictions were abolished after the 1745 rebellion— anybody has been appointed with as little as five years' experience.
As the noble and learned Lord knows, the Faculty of Advocates suggested that the provision could be reformed without any opposition from it. Therefore, I suggest that as a matter of bringing the Bill into touch with reality a period of 15 years would be an appropriate amendment. If the amendment tabled by my noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is not accepted I shall move my amendment.
Lord McCluskey: I am worried about two aspects of the debate. First, there is the danger that at this time of night logic and reason are beginning to enter the proceedings for the first time. Secondly, there is a misunderstanding about writers to the signet. As my noble friend has said, under Article 19 of the Act of Union, which is incorporated in the schedule to the appropriate Scottish and English Acts, after 10 years writers to the signet can, if they pass certain examinations, be appointed to the Bench. In Scotland that provision was enacted in 1706. Since then no writer to the signet has ever been appointed to the Bench under that provision. Recently I went to the WS library to ask how many WSs are currently qualified to be appointed under that provision. I believe that the answer is 903.
For 283 years we have had a provision which has allowed solicitors to be appointed to the Bench of the Court of Session but it has never been used. That helps to portray the nonsense of what is contained in other parts of this Bill.
My Amendment No. 269 is advanced with tongue firmly in cheek. I have no ambition to see the barefoot pleaders whom the Government wish to see tramping through our courts appointed as judges of the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary. But if we are to have the benefit of pleading by those ladies and gentlemen the logic of the situation is that they too should qualify after five years; that is, if there is any logic in the situation at all.
The Government have chosen the five-year period not because it makes sense but because, in the context of a Bill entitled the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill they are terrified to mention the treaty of union. In Scotland that is a red rag to a bull. They have tried to keep it out. I hope that those of us who have mentioned it during debates on the amendments will, despite the huffing and puffing from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on the Front Bench, be seen to have done a public service. I support the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not think that there is any misunderstanding about the position of

1189
writers to the signet. It is a matter of how long they would have to serve before they would be eligible. They have the hurdle of examination before the Faculty of Advocates and I am not in the least surprised that none of them has ever been able to surmount it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell us how many have tried.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have sufficient regard for the writers to the signet— all 900 of them, or whatever the number— to know that they appreciate that there is little or no prospect of their surmounting it.
There is no doubt that members of the Faculty of Advocates can be appointed to the Court of Session Bench after five years. I have no fear in saying to the noble and learned Lord that that provision is to be found in the Treaty of Union. Although it may be certain that no one at the Faculty of Advocates in sensible, modern times has been appointed after five years, I am more concerned to achieve a consistent approach. I do not know how long noble and learned Lords had to practise at the Bar before they were appointed. Clearly, one is looking to appointment in Scotland to the Court of Session Bench after such persons have been silks for some time. Those matters alter from time to time, but it tends to be 10, 12 or 15 years of practice before appointment even as a silk is arrived at.
The noble and learned Lord has clearly had some fun in twisting my tail over this matter. However— I do not seek to depart from this— whether there are solicitors and advocates or the field is strictly restricted to advocates, the objective must be that the person best fitted to appointment to the Court of Session Bench should be appointed. The issue of length of service has, I suspect, not weighed heavily with successive Lords Advocate in making their recommendations to the Secretary of State and the Crown.
If the minimum eligible period of five years has been considered appropriate for advocates for more than two centuries and has not caused difficulty, it would be less than realistic to assume that that provision in relation to appointment of solicitor advocates in future would suddenly open a door to allow people who had served only five years to be appointed. If noble and learned Lords think that there is consistency to be achieved in this, surely the proper starting point is with advocates and the Act of Union.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The difficulty is that, until the sheriff court Act of 1972, the period for a sheriff was five years. That was changed. That Act was not an appropriate Act under which to change the period for appointment of Court of Session judges. This is clearly an appropriate Act because we are asked to approve periods for qualification for appointment as a Court of Session judge.
We have said that someone who has served five years as a sheriff or sheriff principal having already served 10 years to be qualified to be appointed, should be qualified. I have no argument with that,
1190
but five years as an advocate or a solicitor looks daft. One should therefore have an amendment, which the Act of Union allows Parliament to include, to bring the period of qualification into touch with reality. I do not think that there has been an appointment to the Court of Session for at least two hundred years where anyone has been appointed with less than 15 years. Surely we should recognise that fact and not play about with a figure of five years which no longer has any basis in reality.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I know absolutely nothing about the circumstances in which people have been made Court of Session judges. However, I know that times have changed in the way we understand how people learn to perform a new role. There used to be time-serving schemes for apprentices. We used to think that an apprentice had to do X number of years before he could do a job. That went on long before the Act of Union. It was a tradition.
Nowadays we take the point that it depends on ability to perform a certain role. Once a person is capable of doing that, it is ridiculous to talk in terms of a set number of years. I take the point about the length of time it takes to become a sheriff in the sheriff court. I heard what the noble Lord said. I did not know that. I take that point, but it appears to suggest that someone will necessarily be a better judge because he has had rights of audience in the higher court for 10 years rather than five years. That flies in the face of reality. There has been a great deal of sarcasm and snide talking about something that ordinary people understand perfectly well; namely, the idea that, if one has ability, what one cannot learn in five years one will never learn, simply will not do.
Lord McCluskey: As usual the noble Baroness is right at least in her opening remarks in saying that she does not understand very much about this matter. The simple fact is that you cannot have sitting on the Bench a person who does not enjoy the respect of the persons who appear before him. The idea that a layman or any other person, after a simple five years, should be appointed to the High Court Bench is so absurd that even the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate does not support it.
What he says is, "I put this provision in because the Act of Union has a similar provision in relation to advocates". Very well, I can understand that. It is logical and makes some kind of sense because one knows that no one will be appointed to the Bench until he has served 20 years, 25 years, or whatever. To answer the question of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, in my case it was 31 years.
To suggest, as does the noble Baroness, that this should become a reality is to make a nonsense of the provision in the Bill. The noble Baroness should not contribute to a debate in relation to a matter of that kind when she knows so little about it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord that I appreciate his understanding that I am concerned with achieving

1191
consistency. It may be at a level which, in real terms, is very low. But, as a more general proposition, what I am anxious to underline is that while it may be a considerably longer period than five years before anyone can secure elevation to the highest court in Scotland, the signal that I should like to give is that people get there because they have the requisite ability, qualifications and experience.
I must say that in a sense my noble friend Lady Carnegy is correct about this matter. What we would like to indicate is that it is the qualities of the person that are important in relation to the appointment, not whether he, possibly through some complicated formula, has served a sufficient number of years.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may suggest that there should not be a five year period at all; perhaps it should be wiped out. I agree that it is a question of quality. I doubt whether anyone would gain the respect of the Court of Session unless he had served slightly longer than five years.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The difficulty about that proposition is that there is no amendment to the sheriffs appointment which can perfectly well appear in this Bill. If one considers that the period of service has no point, why have a 10-year period for the appointment of solicitors as sheriffs or sheriff principals? Why not abolish that too? If the noble and learned Lord wants to throw in that sort of logic, then let him throw it in and we shall discuss it. As it is at the moment it looks odd.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In giving his answer the noble and learned Lord, if I heard him correctly, seemed to concede that the period of five years (I hope I quote him accurately) was in real terms very low. To my simple mind at least that suggests that the noble and learned Lord accepts that five years is not a proper qualifying period. Apart from commenting that the period is in real terms very low, he says that the five years are there as an incentive to those who are coming into the law to show that they can become senior High Court judges but that they will not get an appointment after five years; it will probably be 10 years or 12 years. If that is the case, why not accept or at least think again about this very low period?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that if he wishes to table an amendment proposing an alteration for advocates, it is a matter that we might look at.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged for that piece of advice from the noble and learned Lord. I shall consider it for a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 268 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 268A:
Page 54, line 2, after ("had") insert ("and have regularly exercised").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment in relation to the same section of Schedule 3 in regard to the question of five years which we have just been discussing. To put it shortly, the reason for inserting these words is that a person can qualify for an appointment as a judge in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary merely by having a right of audience for five years. The essential qualities for appointment as a judge are experience and knowledge of the courts. It may be that in reality someone who had never exercised his rights would never be appointed. Nonetheless the amendment is meant to ensure that only persons who have regularly exercised the right of audience would be eligible for appointment. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We covered much of this matter in the previous debate. I am sure that the noble Lord opposite and the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches can think of members of the Faculty of Advocates and others who have exercised rights of audience for considerably longer than five years, 10 years or 15 years and who, despite that regular exercise of their rights of audience, are extremely unlikely to be appointed to the Court of Session Bench.
As I indicated previously, I do not believe that it is a matter of time serving before appointment to the highest court in Scotland. There are particular qualities, standards of integrity and intellectual ability that are far more important than the regular exercise of rights of audience. While the noble Lord and I are probably unlikely to disagree about what makes up the qualities that are required of a Court of Session judge, I do not think that it is helpful to seek to set down a comprehensive list of requirements in statute. If I were to do so I should want it to be very much more extended than simply having "regularly exercised" rights of audience. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for that answer. We had agreement as to qualities for people being appointed as judges in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary. The amendment may be regarded as surplus to requirement. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 270 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 270A:
Page 54, line 20, at end insert ("after such consultation with judges as appears to the Lord President to be appropriate in the particular circumstances").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is designed to achieve a particular limited purpose. Under the provision which is now contained in the Court of Session Act 1988 and which dates from the beginning of the 19th century or perhaps earlier, the position was that a vacancy arising in a Division of the Inner House— that is the appeal court in

1193
Scotland— should be filled by the appointment of the Senior Lord Ordinary. Under the Bill, the vacancy is to be filled not by the person who is senior but by the person who is selected by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk.
I have to declare an interest. I am currently the Senior Lord Ordinary. If the law remains as it has been for the past 200 years or so, I shall be the next to be promoted to that position. If the law is changed according to the provisions of this Bill, I shall have to line up with the others and face the awful prospect of selection by the Lord President and/or the Lord Justice Clerk. I declare that interest.
However, I wish to make plain that I entirely support the principle that lies behind the provision. It is that judges should be promoted to the appeal court rather than arrive there by reason of outliving their brethren who have got there before them and have died or retired while in office.
The constitutional point is a serious one. I wish to make it briefly. The most important attribute that a judge has is his independence. The safeguard of that independence is twofold. He cannot be rewarded for what he does and he cannot be punished for what he does or omits to do. In Scotland a judge once appointed remains a judge until he retires at the age of 75 or dies or retires through ill health. Nobody can help him and nobody can do him any harm. He is totally and utterly independent.
The trouble with this provision is that it enables someone to reward him. He can be rewarded by being selected to be promoted. He can be punished by not being selected to be promoted. That might begin to have the effect that judges begin to behave after their appointment in such a way as to win the favour of those who make the appointment.
My preference would therefore be that judges should be promoted from the court of first instance to the appeal court not by the Lord President and/or the Lord Justice Clerk but by election by all the judges sitting together. One could then put one's name forward or not as one wished. One could be elected if the other judges thought that one was a suitable person. That is what I should prefer. However, I can see difficulties about that.
I have therefore decided, with the consent of my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie, who knows much more about these matters than I do, to put my name to the amendment that stands in his name and simply to say that the appointment will be made, as the Bill proposes, by the Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk,
"after such consultation with judges as appears to the Lord President to be appropriate in the particular circumstances".
The provision has a certain weakness because the Lord President might decide that nobody needs to be consulted. However, in my view that provision is slightly better than what was there before.
In the hope that that very modest amendment will be accepted, I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not think that I have any interest to declare. Considering the state of health of those who are senior to me in the Outer
1194
House and their ages, it is highly unlikely that I should ever reach the position under the present law of being promoted.
However, I suggest that it is a very dangerous provision as it stands without the right of consultation. It could isolate both the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk and could cause feelings of resentment. That would be very dangerous if it were to arise in a small college of justice of 24 members, as at the moment. It is therefore necessary that there should be some measure built in to deal with that. I support the amendment in the names of my noble and learned friends saying that there should be consultation.
I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, had in mind that if for any reason the senior Lord Ordinary or the senior two or three Lords Ordinary were being jumped over by somebody junior to them it would be those senior ones who would be consulted. One can see that there is a great deal of sense in that. But on the whole I express the hope that this power should not be operated and the previous tradition should continue.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This amendment was originally tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, and I am grateful to him and to those who have spoken in support of it. I wish to indicate to the Committee that I accept the amendment as it is tabled. I should say that I understand it was always the intention of the present Lord President, Lord Hope, to carry out such consultation, but it is clearly no bad thing that that consultation arrangement should be spelt out on the face of the statute.
While I am indicating that I accept the amendment as it stands, I shall have another look at it before Report stage because there may be considered by some to be a slight curiosity in it— that the appointment is to be made effectively jointly by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk. While the Lord President is clearly the senior judge it may seem rather curious that he should carry out consultation but someone with whom he has to make a joint appointment should not similarly consult. However, I want to emphasise as clearly as I can that the principle of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has set out is accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 271 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 271A:
Page 55, line 26, leave out from ("section") to (", has") in line 27 and insert ("25A (rights of audience) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Solicitors' fees]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should point out to the Committee that

1195
if this Amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 272A and 272B.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 31, leave out lines 12 to 26.
The noble Lord said: This amendment to Clause 27 of the Bill, which deals with solicitors' fees, is to leave out lines 12 to 26, which effectively takes out the first two sub-paragraphs of the new Clause 61A. That may seem a rather drastic way of drawing attention to the position, but it is a general view that the present wording of the clause is not happy in that it takes away from the parties the right to have the solicitor's account remitted for taxation.
Taxation is a very cheap method of deciding an issue between the solicitor and the client, and it is difficult to see why that old practice which has been going on in Scottish courts for years is being taken away. If a client agreed that a solicitor's fee should be £ 1,000, for example, and the solicitor managed to reach a quick agreement by doing £ 100 worth of work, there would be £ 900 afloat somewhere. The question is: if the solicitor says that the fee is £ 1,000, how does the poor client get back his £ 900 apart from raising a court action, again at expense and no doubt having to employ another solicitor and having to agree another fee?
Perhaps the Lord Advocate will kindly explain why that method of settling solicitors' accounts is being taken away. I understand that the sheriff court auditors do taxations for 4 per cent. of the net fee, and if more than 25 per cent. is taken off the account the solicitor himself has to pay the auditor's fee. So there seems to be a fair degree of equity in the present proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not see the point of this clause as it is drafted. What happens if the agreement in the new clause is that the accounts should be taxed by the auditor of court? Is that prohibited? It does not appear to cover that situation and that is a fairly frequent agreement; namely, that there should be a taxed account.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: There is nothing to prevent such an agreement.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The clause states that if there is such an agreement, it shall not be competent, for the amount due to be paid, for the court to remit the solicitor's account for taxation. If the agreement is to do that, why is it not competent to do it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall look at that again. To make progress on this, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will appreciate that the Law Society and ourselves are anxious to allow two bases on which accounts between a solicitor and a client can be settled in future. First, my later amendment, which I hope will be accepted, will provide that if there is a written agreement to settle what shall be the fees, the well established procedure of going to taxation to establish what is the precise amount of the account will be excluded. However, if there is no such
1196
agreement the standing arrangement to allow for taxation persists.
It seems to me that the arrangement which we are now proposing is sensible. It may be that clients will feel very much happier having at the outset a clear statement of how the fee will be arrived at without being told in broad terms that the matter will be settled after taxation, because that is a process which the client may find extremely difficult to understand.
As I understand it, the Law Society of Scotland welcomes this opportunity. That is not only a matter of their own self-interest, because the Scottish Consumer Council has also taken the view that that would be helpful. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I shall read with interest what the noble and learned Lord has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 272A:
Page 31, line 17, at end insert ("in writing").
The noble and learned Lord said: As I have already indicated by my brief intervention on the last amendment, this amendment seeks to ensure that where there is an agreement between a solicitor and client as to how the fees are to be established without recourse to taxation by the auditor of court, that can only be allowed where the agreement has been reduced to writing. I should have thought that that was a valuable safeguard not only for the solicitor but also for the client.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 272B:
Page 31, line 25, after ("no") insert ("written").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 31, leave out lines 27 to 35.
The noble Lord said: This is the same type of amendment as a previous one which has already been discussed but in this case it refers to legal aid cases. That deletion is to enable legal aid accounts to be sent for taxation. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If the noble Lord is speaking to Amendment No. 273, then he is mistaken. He is in fact speaking to a later amendment. Amendment No. 273 deals with the speculative case provision. Perhaps we can get back on line and the noble Lord will tell us what is his argument on Amendment No. 273.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for pointing that out to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 274 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 275:
Page 31, line 35, at end insert:
(" (5) In the event of a dispute arising between solicitor and client about the solicitor's account, the court shall when considering the nature of any agreement between the parties, consider the following—

(a) whether the solicitor misled the client as to any material act in the negotiation of the agreement; and

(b) whether the agreement was one which a knowledgeable client would reasonably have entered.").

The noble Lord said: This is an addition to Clause 27 dealing with the dispute arising between solicitor and client and raising two issues which the court would be obliged to take into account when deciding the nature of an agreement. It must consider whether the solicitor misled the client on any material fact in negotiating the agreement and also whether the agreement was one into which a knowledgeable client would have entered.
The short point behind the amendment is for the protection of the public. To a large extent clients visiting solicitors are at the mercy of the professional adviser and therefore this type of consideration should be spelt out in the Bill for the guidance of people entering into agreements. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand the thinking behind this amendment and the reason why the noble Lord is anxious to ensure that any client who has been misled by his solicitor should be protected. I consider that the general law of contract, both the common law and case law, is extensive and detailed and can be relied upon to provide a basis for deciding any claim a client may wish to make relating to the circumstances in which an agreement was entered into.
I hope that that will be more than sufficient, but if I missed something, doubtless the noble Lord will inform me.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I appreciate that there is ample law on the question of fraud, and so on, that may be sufficient to cover the circumstances. Having heard that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 275A is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 275B, 275C and 275D.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 275A:
Page 31, leave out lines 36 to 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, inadvertently spoke. This also is an amendment which is supported by the Law Society.
The effect of Clause 27 (2) as drafted means that in any litigation the sheriff or Court of Session judge should settle any dispute as to the amount of fees or outlays. It appears both to the Law Society and to myself that the better person would be the auditor
1198
of court because that is his job. The effect, although no doubt unintended, of Clause 27 (2) would be a proliferation of unnecessary court actions and unnecessary delay and expense in those court actions which were necessary. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I appreciate the point made by the noble and learned Lord regarding the provisions of this subsection, which is concerned with the role of the auditor in respect of legal aid. This is not defined in the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 but appears in regulations and is a legacy carried forward from 1983 when the fees were prescribed by the Lord President of the Court of Session. An alternative to the auditor's role in relation to legal aid was first contemplated in 1983. This allowed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to prescribe regulations to provide for the assessment and taxation of fees and outlays and for the review of any such assessment either by himself or by any other person.
While in some cases auditors' decisions have assisted the Scottish Legal Aid Board in forming guidelines for future assessment of accounts, in others inconsistencies have arisen when varying decisions on the same question have been given by different auditors. It is particularly unsatisfactory that the auditor should be put in the position of interpreting legal aid regulations because that is not what his training equips him for.
Against this background, where a dispute between a solicitor and the board arises the auditor should not have an automatic role as adjudicator. It is wrong that the auditor should be able to override the fee based on the legal aid regulations in just the same way that the Law Society of Scotland has argued that he should not be able to substitute his judgment in place of an agreement arrived at between solicitor and client. In agreeing to represent the client awarded legal aid, the solicitor accepts that payment for the services he provides will be made in accordance with, and at the rate prescribed in, the legal aid regulations.
This subsection is, therefore, simply applying to legal aid exactly the same treatment which, in response to Law Society representations, is being applied to fees agreed between the solicitor and the private client as the provision in subsection (1) of this clause prescribes.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I regret to say that I disagree, but I shall put my reasons briefly. This subsection is landing the job on the sheriff or the Court of Session judge rather than on the auditor because it states:
"It shall not be competent, in any litigation arising out of any dispute".
Therefore, who is to deal with the litigation except the judge? The judge normally sends it to the auditor because he is the person who knows. He can assess better than the judge, because the amount of extra work involved in a legal aid case is his speciality.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to take away the amendment and think about it. If he can give an indication that he will do that, I shall have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall think about the amendment, but I also invite the noble and learned Lord to read what I had to say. I believe he will appreciate that there is not as much between us as he seems to think.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 275B:
Page 31, line 40, after ("of) insert (" (a) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to extend the provisions which Clause 27 (2) introduces covering disputes which arise between the Scottish Legal Aid Board and solicitors as to the level of fees payable to include similar disputes arising between the board and advocates. Under the amendment it shall not be competent in any litigation arising from a fee dispute for the court to remit the advocate's account to the auditor of court for taxation. This provision will ensure consistency throughout Scotland, placing disputes between the board and advocates on the same footing as those between the board and solicitors. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 275C and 275D.
Page 31, line 41, after ("solicitor") insert:
("or
(b) any fees to be paid to an advocate, ").
Page 31, line 42, leave out ("solicitor's account for the fees or outlays") and insert ("account concerned").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 275E:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Availability of legal aid in relation to services provided under this Act.
.After section 43 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 there shall be inserted the following section—
"43A.— (1) Advice and assistance shall be available, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, in relation to the provision of confirmation and conveyancing services by confirmation practitioners and conveyancing practitioners, all within the meaning of section 19 (interpretation of sections 14 to 18) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 as they are so available in relation to the provision of the like services by solicitors.
(2) Subject to any act of sederunt or act of adjournal made under subsection (10) of section 21 of that Act, advice and assistance, civil legal aid and criminal legal aid shall be available, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, in relation to the provision of services by persons who have acquired rights to conduct litigation or, as the case may be, rights of audience by virtue of that section as they are so available in relation to the provision of the like services by solicitors and, where appropriate, by advocates.
(3) Where advice and assistance, civil legal aid or criminal legal aid has been made available by virtue of this section, the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to the person
1200
providing those services as they apply in relation to a solicitor or advocate providing like services.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 275EA, 275EB and 275EC, as amendments to Amendment No. 275E, not moved.]
The Earl of Selkirk: My noble and learned friend said that advice and assistance should be available. I referred to that at an earlier stage of our proceedings. Ease of access to where one can obtain assistance is extremely important. The suggestion is that it should be the licensed conveyancers or conveyancing practitioners. I do not see where that comes in. I do not suppose that there is anything that my noble and learned friend can do about it, but perhaps he can tell me where this advice can be most easily obtained. It is a cardinal point which until now has been omitted from the Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The purpose of these provisions is that legal aid advice and assistance are obviously available under the existing legal aid arrangements in Scotland if one wishes to obtain advice from solicitors. This provision is to permit— if there are to be confirmation and conveyancing services provided by confirmation and conveyancing practitioners— in the same way that, if advice and assistance are sought, they should be obtainable from them as well. It is a sensible extension of the broad provisions that we make for legal aid in Scotland.
The Earl of Selkirk: Is the advice to be given free, gratis and for nothing? I want to know because I am thinking of a person who has never been to a solicitor's office. He thinks it is a terrible place and that frightful people work there. He is frightened of going. I am not exaggerating. It is important to get some guidance.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It is not a matter of whether he should get advice or assistance but who is going to pay for it. As I have said, under the legal aid provisions in Scotland at the moment there is some advice and assistance which will be paid for by the state under the legal aid Acts. We are proposing that, if comparable advice is sought from this new breed of practitioners, then in such circumstances and by way of an extension, legal aid should be available as regards those persons.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 275F:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
("Advisory and supervisory functions of the Director.—
(1) Before—

(a) making any regulations under section 15 (5) or (9) of this Act; or

(b) approving any rules—

(i) made under section 16 (3) or 17 (9); or

(ii) such as are mentioned in section 23 (1) or (1A), of this Act; or

1201

(c) considering any provisions of a draft scheme under section 22 (6) or (7) of this Act,

the Secretary of State shall first send a copy of the proposed regulations, rules or provisions to the Director.
(2) The Director shall consider whether any such regulations, rules or provisions as are mentioned in subsection (1) above would have, or would be likely to have, the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition to any significant extent.
(3) When the Director has completed his consideration he shall give such advice to the Secretary of State as he thinks fit.
(4) The Director may publish any advice given by him under subsection (3) above.
(5) The Director shall, so far as practicable, exclude from anything published under subsection (4) above any matter—

(a) which relates to the affairs of a particular person; and

(b) the publication of which would, or might in the Director's opinion, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that person.

(6) For the purposes of the law of defamation, the publication of any advice by the Director under this section shall be absolutely privileged.").
The noble and learned Lord said: During the passage of Part II of the Bill I have repeatedly made reference to the new clauses that begin with this amendment which relate to the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: Are these words new or are they in the Act which set up the office of director general? On the other hand, are they a new statement of his tasks and duties?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, indicated, from the time when the Bill was first printed reference was made to the director general and what role he should take in giving advice to the Secretary of State. What we have in these new clauses is a far clearer and fuller explanation of where the director general would intervene; what his advisory and supervisory function should be; what his investigatory powers should be and what are his functions in relation to rules made under the 1980 Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has not always been entirely complimentary to this part of the Bill. He indicated that these provisions were an improvement and I believe that they are.
The Earl of Selkirk: I appreciate that, but are these words new or merely copies from the earlier Act?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: They are new powers in relation to what the Secretary of State will be doing.
The Earl of Balfour: Again, there is the use of the word "Director" without clearly indicating, as is done in other parts of the Bill, that he is the Director of Fair Trading. Perhaps between now and Report stage my noble friend will consider that matter. I have spoken about this matter in relation to an earlier clause.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If my noble friend would care to look at Amendment No. 275J, he will find at page 33, line 3, that I shall be inserting,
"'the Director" means the Director General of Fair Trading'.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 275G:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
("Investigatory powers of the Director
(1) For the purpose of investigating any matter under section (Advisory and supervisory functions of the Director) of this Act, the Director may by notice in writing—

(a) require any person to produce to him or to any person appointed by him for the purpose, at a time and place specified in the notice, any documents which are specified or described in the notice and which—

(i) are in that person's custody or under that person's control; and

(ii) relate to any matter relevant to the investigation; or

(b) require any person carrying on any business to furnish to him (within such time and in such manner and form as the notice may specify) such information as may be specified or described in the notice.

(2) A person shall not be required under this section to produce any document or disclose any information which he would be entitled to refuse to produce or disclose on the grounds of confidentiality between a client and his professional legal adviser in any civil proceedings.
(3) Subsections (5) to (8) of section 85 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 shall apply in relation to a notice under this section as they apply in relation to a notice under subsection (1) of that section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 275H:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
("Functions of Director in relation to certain rules made under the 1980 Act
After section 64 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following sections—
"Advisory and supervisory functions of the Director General of Fair Trading
64A.— (1) Before considering any rule—

(a) made under section 25A (5) or (6); or

(b) such as is mentioned in section 34 (3A),

the Secretary of State shall send a copy of the proposed rule in question to the Director.
(2) The Director shall consider whether the rule in question would have, or would be likely to have, the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition to any significant extent.
(3) When the Director has completed his consideration he shall give such advice to the Secretary of State as he thinks fit.
(4) The Director may publish any advice given by him under subsection (3).
(5) The Director shall, so far as practicable, exclude from anything published under subsection (4) any matter—

(a) which relates to the affairs of a particular person; and

(b) the publication of which would, or might in the Director's opinion, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that person.

(6) For the purposes of the law of defamation, the publication of any advice or report by the Director under this section shall be absolutely privileged.
Duty of Secretary of State
64B. When he has received advice under section 64A (3) in relation to a rule made under section 25A (5) or (6) or such as is mentioned in section 34 (3A), the Secretary of State may, having considered—

(a) that advice;

(b) whether the interests of justice require that there should be such a rule; and

1203

(c) in relation to a rule made under section 25A (6), any relevant practice obtaining in the sheriff court,

approve or refuse to approve the rule.
Investigatory powers of the Director.
64C— (1) For the purpose of investigating any matter under section 64A, the Director may by notice in writing—

(a) require any person to produce to him or to any person appointed by him for the purpose, at a time and place specified in the notice, any documents which are specified or described in the notice and which—

(i) are in that person's custody or under that person's control; and

(ii) relate to any matter relevant to the investigation; or

(b) require any person carrying on any business to furnish to him (within such time and in such manner and form as the notice may specify) such information as may be specified or described in the notice.

(2) A person shall not be required under this section to produce any document or disclose any information which he would be entitled to refuse to produce or disclose on the grounds of confidentiality between a client and his professional legal adviser in any civil proceedings.
(3) Subsections (5) to (8) of section 85 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 shall apply to relation to a notice under this section as they apply in relation to a notice under subsection (1) of that section.".").
[Amendment No. 275HA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 275H, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 275H agreed to.
Clause 30 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 275J:
Page 33, line 3, at end insert:
(" "the Director" means the Director General of Fair Trading; ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 275K:P
Before Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Application for off-sale licence
.— (1) In subsection (2) of section 10 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the principal Act") the words "Paragraph (a) of this subsection shall not apply to an application for the grant of an off-sale licence." shall cease to have effect.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 36 of that Act the words "(other than off-sale premises) "shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: We now come to a part of the Bill which, from a purely legal point of view, is less technical. We have all been involved in the question of licensing and licensed premises. The purpose of the amendment is to give licensing boards the same power in respect of the structure of and structural alterations to off-sale premises as they already have in the case of ordinary licensed premises. The control of the structure of off-sale premises will enable licensing boards to ensure that the layout is conducive to the prevention of the sale of alcohol by or to persons under the age of 18 years. There is no attempt on my part or on the part of the supporters of the amendment to try to inhibit commerce, but there is a feeling that in some cases
1204
the premises are almost inadequate for the purpose. When a public house or hotel bar is inspected there should also be power to look at the physical layout of the off-licence. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This amendment would require the applicant for a new off-sale licence or for the renewal of such a licence to lodge a plan with the clerk of the licensing board. This is similar to the existing provisions relating to public house and hotel licences. The present provisions have operated since the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959 came into operation. I am not aware that the exclusion of off sale premises has created any problems for licensing boards. If the amendment were carried it would place an additional burden on small businesses at a time when the Government are anxious to reduce controls.
If we accept the case for requiring plans to be lodged in the case of public houses and hotels where members of the public spend a considerable period of their leisure time and where alcohol is consumed on the premises, it is right that the boards should have the opportunity to consider the proposed layout in some detail and to consider the public area and safety implications of it. While I understand the noble Lord's interest in the matter, we do not see that there is the same justification in the case of off-sales licences where the customer buys his drink and, by definition, leaves. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am disappointed that the Minister has not offered at least to take away the amendment to consider it. I do not know what extra burden would be placed on the licensing authority. I am sure that licensing authorities receive information about premises from chief constables and others in the district. I know of a number of off-licences— I am sure that there must be many even in the east of Scotland— which are inadequate for the purpose. They are sometimes run by families and quite frequently young people may be selling at the counter. There should be some control. I shall withdraw the amendment but I may bring it back at Report stage after taking more advice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Permitted hours]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 33, line 20 at end insert ("in the afternoon").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I added my name to it because he was unable to be here for reasons which we all understand and he asked me to do so. Put simply, the present position is that public houses are allowed to open on Sunday but they must close at 2.30 p.m. That means that they are allowed to open between 12.30 and 2.30 p.m. They are then allowed to reopen at 6.30 p.m. The Bill suggests that the permitted hours for hotels, registered clubs, entertainment establishments and

1205
even for off-licences should be such that they can open for the entire afternoon— that is, from 12.30 to 11 p.m.— if they wish to do so.
The general feeling is that that provision would be rather unfair for public houses. The amendment simply requests a fair and equal right for all sections of the licensed trade. We hope when the Bill has finished its parliamentary process that it will be seen to be fair and equitable to all concerned. I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: I oppose the amendment because I believe that the Government have the timing right in this respect. I support the Government. From the information I have received from north of the Border, I understand the number of alcoholic disturbances is increasing. In my view we should restrict the hours to those set out in the Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. The amendments seek to allow Sunday opening of public houses and licensed clubs between the hours of 12.30 and 11 p.m. The original purpose of Parliament in enacting Section 64 (4) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, which prohibits Sunday afternoon opening, was to prevent all-day bar drinking on Sundays, particularly when this was unrelated to the service of meals. The consultative review of the 1976 Act sought to ascertain the views of all those who would be affected by possible changes to the existing licensing laws and the responses showed that a clear majority of respondents were opposed to any extension on Sunday of permitted hours for public houses.
Following that consultation, the Government have accepted this view and we would be reluctant to allow the interests of the licensed trade to take precedence over that clearly expressed majority view that Sunday afternoon peace and quite might be put at risk, particularly in urban areas where many public houses are situated in residential areas. The clause is drafted accordingly.
The matter is not one which arises from an oversight; it is a clear policy view which bears in mind the majority expression of opinion in Scotland following on from the consultation. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: Before the amendment is withdrawn I should like to ask a question. Subsection (2) of new Section 53 states,
"Nothing in this section shall authorise the sale or supply of alcoholic liquor for consumption off the premises".
Although I wholeheartedly support the restricting of licences, under the heading of clubs— I think that the legislation is most necessary— I should like to raise one point. Many clubs rely upon making money from running raffles. Will someone be breaking the law if having won a raffle he walks out of the building with a bottle of whisky under his arm? That is an important point as regards clubs. That is my only query in respect of this part of the Bill. Apart from that one aspect, I think that the legislation in regard
1206
to the next few clauses has improved the situation considerably.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: So far as concerns this particular amendment and whether one approves of Sunday drinking, the question is one of equity. The licensed trade feels that it is being badly done by. The refusal even to consider an adjustment of the figure means that the reality of life which we have been discussing in relation to other clauses in the Bill is ignored. It may cause greater social disruption to have people being put out of the public houses at half-past two, making their way to the nearest supermarket, buying drink and sitting around the place drinking out of lager cans. It is much more civilised that if people want a drink they can sit in the pub for as long as they like, just as they could in a place of entertainment. There is such a proliferation of places dealing in alcohol now that the licensed trade association— for which I hold no brief— has suggested the amendment for the Government's consideration. It feels badly done by at this exclusion from the general provision on the Sabbath.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Since this matter impinges on later amendments, I feel bound to support the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Macaulay, on the opposite Benches. I can well understand the objection of my noble friend Lord Brentford in principle. However, we are not talking now about the principle, but about the equity. It seems rather pointless that one should set down in law the inability of a person to buy liquor in one place whereas if he crosses the street he may buy it freely. This seems to me basically wrong. It holds no great substance. The major objection to drinking on Sunday has already been dealt with in the provisions that exist in Scotland.
I feel that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate ought to look at the matter not on the basis of surveys— he has singularly not distinguished the exact surveys to which he refers— but on the sheer basis of equity as between one tradesman and another.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps I may make a point to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He mentioned the increase in drunkenness and the cause suggested by the surveys. However, what was the breakdown? I have seen figures in some surveys about which I was not happy. How do we know when someone is bouncing around the street? Incidentally, I am not sure whether access to alcohol because of the outlets has caused the increase in drunkenness which is reported or whether, as many experts believe, it is caused by the price being lower than before. Most people concerned about alcoholism are convinced that price has more to do with it than the availability of the outlets.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Macaulay and also the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about the ways of getting drink. The larger can is probably the most objectionable way of drinking alcohol. If the Minister will not take the amendment away I

1207
shall withdraw it, but we would wish to come back with it in some form later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 277 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 277A:
Page 33, line 29, leave out ("II") and insert ("III").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 277A and 281A are straightforward drafting amendments which seek to rectify minor errors which appeared in the introductory print of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 277B and 277C not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 34, line 11, leave out ("in the case of days other than Sundays,').
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to go too far with Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 in the light of Amendment No. 277C having been withdrawn by the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay and Lord Carmichael. Their amendment and mine seek some indication from my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate as to the circumstances in which he feels that it is undesirable for the consumption of liquor bought from off-licences to be allowed. I stress the word "allowed" as distinct from "mandatory" as regards the sale of liquor throughout normal trading hours.
It seems to me that the licensing authority in Scotland should be allowed to accept from an existing licence holder an extension to his licence to sell liquor on Sundays. If that were the case and existing licence holders could extend their licences, it would be for the licensing authority to either accept such applications or even to accept applications with certain conditions. I understand that in certain areas in Scotland particular arrangements apply. Alternatively, the licensing authority could refuse an application. My amendment seeks to allow the licensing authority to consider an application by an existing holder to trade on Sunday. I should be grateful therefore if my noble and learned friend could give me a reason why that should not be allowed, I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: I believe the noble Lord is also speaking to Amendment No. 279A.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: If my noble friend will excuse me, I should say that I did not wish to consider Amendment No. 279A along with this amendment. I believe that is my right and that it would be proper for the Committee to deal with the matters raised in those two amendments separately and treat each of them on their merits.
Viscount Brentford: I must register the fact that because of the amendment that my noble friend Lord Selkirk and I have tabled I am against Amendment No. 278, even if it is being treated separately, for the reasons that I would prefer to discuss more fully when we come to Amendment No. 279A.
The Earl of Selkirk: Some people think that Sunday does not matter at all but others disagree. I believe that it is important that Sunday should be different to the rest of the week. To allow for licensing arrangements to be the same every day of the week would be quite wrong. However, I have other reasons for stating that. If public houses are open at lunchtime on Sundays, families are less likely to have Sunday luncheon together. It is extremely important that families should have that meal together. We should encourage them to have lunch together on at least one day of the week. That is of considerable significance in itself.
1210
Further, the police complain that over the weekend, particularly on Sunday evenings, there can be trouble and difficulty. They do not like to think that every day of the week should be the same and that they will have the same trouble in the week as occurs at the weekend. This amendment is identical, except as regards time, with Amendment No. 277 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I believe this amendment represents a sensible arrangement. I certainly would not have invented it myself. It is a recommendation that has come to me from Scotland.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand that my noble friend Lord Lucas wishes to deal with his Amendment No. 278 separately. However, throughout the amendments that we must consider to every clause the difficulty is that in Scotland there are people who hold deeply the view that there should be no relaxation of licensing provisions there on the Sabbath. I suspect that the same is true south of the Border. In a clear and equitable fashion the simplest approach would be to make Sunday the same as every other day of the week and to allow all opening hours on the Sabbath to be exactly the same as those from Monday to Saturday.
However, as we have picked our way through the provisions for Sunday, we have sought to allow for some change and relaxation while in another amendment responding to the views put forward by my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lord Selkirk. Their points of view are strongly held in Scotland. We can always be criticised for an inconsistency or an awkward attempt at balance. However, while I recognise that the setting of opening hours for off-licences at 12.30 p.m. may create problems for retail outlets, which legitimately open earlier, we must balance that convenience to a proportion of their customers who hold views such as those held by my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lord Selkirk.
I believe that we have done our best to strike the correct balance by aligning off-scale opening hours on Sunday with those of pubs and hotels. I hope that with that explanation Members of the Committee will understand why we have adopted the arrangements.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that he had aligned the opening hours of off-licences with those of pubs and hotels. If he has I shall be delighted, but I do not believe that he meant to say that. Secondly, I do not see how the provision would affect the view held by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, because people could obtain goods from the off-licence and go home for lunch together.
Will the noble and learned Lord clarify the position? Will only public houses be closed? I am sure that he said that they would all be brought into line and open on Sunday afternoons.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: That was what I said.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I do not wish to tread on the sensibilities of any Scots people, particularly

1211
those of my noble and learned friends, but let us be practical. The Scottish law allows trading in fulsome terms on Sundays. Therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose that many families do their weekly and leisure shopping on Sundays. Indeed, such evidence has been put before me. It is ridiculous that on Sundays families should be deprived of buying one particular item that is in their normal household expenditure; namely, liquor. It is perhaps anomalous to suggest that they can buy that product at a different place and at a different time.
This clause deals essentially with consumer matters. The Scottish Consumer Council, among others, has welcomed the amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, to the effect that there should be permission for off-licences to sell alcohol on Sunday. The anomaly is that other licensed premises, such as hotels and pubs, have been allowed to sell alcohol since 1976 whereas off-licences in supermarkets and other stores cannot do so. I hope that the Committee will not accuse me of being too harsh if I suggest to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate that there is an element of hypocrisy here. A certain section of the licensed trade can sell; another cannot. There is no logic in that. I invite my noble and learned friend to think about the logic of my amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not think that I can expand upon the amendment. I certainly understand the logic of it. It is clean and tidy. If those people who run retail outlets, for example, with off-sale premises within them, were to be enabled to open earlier than 12.30 p.m., it would clearly be logical and helpful to them and to a proportion of their customers. However, my noble friend will appreciate that others, whose views have already been expressed and are expressed in a subsequent amendment, take a diametrically opposed view to his. There is no absolute answer to the problem. We have achieved as best we can a balance between those conflicting interests.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his further explanation. The balance does not appear to be tipped in my favour. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 279 not moved]
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 279A:
Page 34, line 13, leave out ("half past twelve o'clock in the afternoon and ten o'clock") and insert ("three o'clock in the afternoon and seven o'clock").
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Selkirk has already spoken to the amendment. I should like to underline one or two points that he has made. I am not sure whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate covered all the points arising from the amendment, although he has partially expressed his views.
The 12.15 p.m. or 12.30 p.m. opening time is important from the point of view of the staff of off-licences. It cuts into the one opportunity for the family get-together at lunch on a Sunday, as my noble friend rightly pointed out, and it prevents staff going to church on a Sunday. I understand from the Church of Scotland that services normally finish about 12.15 p.m. Obviously, people would not be able to reach their off-licences in time to open at half past twelve. That therefore causes hardship for workers in off-licences.
The more restricted opening hours will provide ample time for people to make their purchases along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Lucas. They will also help to curb the lager can problem about which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is so worried. Therefore I believe that this amendment meets the anxieties of quite a number of those who have spoken in Committee in regard to the past two amendments.
The evening hours restriction would have the effect of curtailing a certain amount of alcohol purchasing and consumption with the accordingly decreased incidence of alcohol abuse that sadly is increasing north of the Border as it is south of the Border. I am informed by the Church of Scotland that the desire of communities in Scotland is to try to make weekends and evenings safer from the abuse of alcohol. That is why I believe that this amendment is positive and constructive and should be considered.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is the point at which the crossfire in which I indicated that I was caught reveals itself. On the one hand my noble friend Lord Lucas thinks that I am being far too restrictive; from the other side I am being implored to impose yet further restriction. I can only repeat that I do not think that we shall attain a perfect balance in this matter.
However, I would have hoped that ensuring that premises should not open before 12.30 would allow the greater part, if not the entirety, of the morning to be free for families. Also, the time that such premises are open in the evening will enable those who work in them to get home to their families. I am not sure that I shall wholly satisfy my noble friend any more than I was earlier able to satisfy my noble friend Lord Lucas.
Viscount Brentford: In view of those remarks and in consideration of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I shall certainly reconsider it for a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 280:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Objections in relation to applications
.In section 16 (1) (a) of the principal Act (objections in relation to applications) after "any organisation" there shall be inserted "or licensed trade association".").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to add a new clause that amends Section 16 (l) (a) of the principal Act so that objections should be possible for local licensed trade associations and not merely for the national associations. The belief— and I concur with it— is that frequently the people who know best about what is happening locally are the local licensees. Any person who owns or occupies property situated in the neighbourhood of the premises to which the application relates or any organisation which in the opinion of the board represents such a person should have some rights in deciding or putting forward a point of view at least on the question of whether a licence should be granted. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This amendment seeks to include specifically within the list of competent objectors the licensed trade association. Licensing boards already consider objections from licensees in the neighbourhood of the premises to which the application before them relates. Accordingly a licensed trade association, which by definition would represent local licensees, is already covered by the provision.
While I believe that it is right that such associations should appear and make their objections, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment because I believe that there is no need for it. I should be grateful if we could consider this matter outwith this Chamber. I have a suspicion that those who prompted the noble Lord to consider it, or prompted my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy to table the amendment, may have encountered difficulties in some parts of Scotland with licensed associations being given a right to be heard before licensing boards. If that is the case I should be interested to hear from the noble Lord.
Certainly, as matters stand at the moment, I invite him to withdraw the amendment because I see it as unnecessary and not because I am opposed to it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I am informed that some licensing boards accept the local licensed trade association as a competent objector while others do not. Part of the purpose of the amendment was to achieve uniformity or clarity. I shall be only too pleased to discuss the matter with the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 281 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Sunday opening of licensed premises]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 281ZA:
Page 34, line 31 at end insert:
(" (1A) Where a public house licence or a refreshment licence does not permit the sale or supply of alcholic liquor during the permitted hours on Sunday the holder of the licence may apply to the licensing board for the licence to be extended so as to permit such sale and supply.
(1B) In section 5 (2) (h) of the principal Act for the words from "other" to "where" there shall be substituted "or an application under section 32 (1a) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 unless".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment provides that,
"where a public house licence or a refreshment licence does not permit the sale or supply of alcoholic liquor during the permitted hours on Sunday the holder of the licence may apply to the licensing board for the licence to be extended so as to permit such sale and supply".
The clause is concerned with the right of appeal and the right of the licence holder to apply to the board for permission. It is grouped with Amendments Nos. 281ZA to 281ZE. We are providing for equalisation of the opening hours for licensed canteens, registered clubs and public houses, and for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises. We believe that that is a special category. As such it warrants special provision in relation to Sunday.
I need to have more information. There seems to be some mix-up. I see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate wishes to intervene. Perhaps he knows the point that is to be made. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clause 32 deals with new provisions relating to the new Sunday opening hours for public houses and refreshment houses which are not presently opened on a Sunday. The clause removes the need for separate application to be made by licensees in respect of Sunday opening. The 1976 Act at present requires a special application to be made for Sunday opening of public houses or refreshment houses in accordance with procedures set out in Schedule 4. Separate applications are not required in respect of Sunday opening of hotels or restaurants. The clause allows application for the grant or renewal of a public or refreshment licence to include Sunday opening but provides a safeguard that licensing boards may refuse Sunday opening where they consider it would cause undue disturbance or public nuisance in the locality. While it is our intention to streamline the application procedures, we do not wish applicants to be in the position where, contrary to the present situation, they may not be able to apply for a Sunday opening licence after they have been granted a licence for opening on Monday to Saturday.
In the light of these interesting amendments that the noble Lord has moved, we propose to reconsider the terms of the Bill as drafted on this issue. On that basis, I should be grateful if noble Lords withdrew their amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: There was an error in the material that I had. However, I am very pleased with the response of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 281ZB to 281ZE not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 281A:
Page 35, line 26, leave out ("entertainment") and insert ("refreshment").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 281AA not moved.]
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 281AB not moved.]
Clause 33 [Regular extensions of permitted hours]:
[Amendment No. 281AC not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Restriction orders]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 281B:
Page 36, line 28, after ("is") insert ("has been or threatens to become").
The noble Earl said: This is rather complicated because Amendments Nos. 281B, 281C, 281D and 281E are all one amendment dealing with a single point. The point is that when there are occasions in which the peace and quiet of an area has been disturbed or when there has been a nuisance of a general character, provision is made for this and it is handed over entirely to the licensing board. The licensing board can take evidence if it wishes, but the crux of this is that it can then come to a decision in regard to the nuisance that has been caused and there will be no appeal to the sheriff. That is quite a step forward and it puts the responsibility squarely on the board, which is where I think it should be. It is in those terms that I beg to move the amendment.
Viscount Brentford: I support the amendment and back my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who has given the general picture so clearly.
The purpose of Amendment No. 281B of the three in this grouping is to widen very slightly the powers of the licensing board. It is feared that if the word "is" stands there alone there would have to be an actual disturbance before the provision could be invoked. If it is extended to "has been" in the past or "threatens to become" in the future the licensing board can respond more readily to any public concern about any undue disturbance or nuisance regarding the way of life in a locality on a Sunday.
I believe that the amendment would enable the licensing board to take account of recent incidents or those of genuine community concern. As I have said before, it is relevant to the feelings and views expressed in the community, which are very important in Scotland, where my wife is at the moment although I am down here.
The purpose of Amendment No. 281C is to make final the decision of the elected representatives in the licensing board on questions of fact, so that there is not an appeal to the sheriff. The sheriff should deal with appeals on questions of law but not on questions of fact, again because it is thought that the elected democratic representatives are in a better position to assess questions of fact than the sheriff. But obviously an appeal on a question of law should remain to the sheriff as at present. These are socially important matters to the community which should be considered by the elected representatives.
Amendment No. 281D should simply enable the board to respond more quickly and decisively by inserting the words "at any time" into the clause. I support these three amendments.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clause 34 as presently drafted provides for restriction orders in respect of afternoon and Sunday opening now included in the new permitted hours. Amendment No. 281B would enable the board to consider not only present public nuisance considerations but also past or future considerations. This goes beyond the intention of the present clause, which simply adds afternoons and Sundays to the restriction order provisions.
We are not aware that the terms of the existing provisions have given rise to significant difficulty in enabling a board to reach a sensible judgment as to whether a restriction order is appropriate. Amendments Nos. 281C and 281D remove the right of appeals from a licensee who has had a restriction order placed on his premises. As restriction orders in effect reduce the permitted hours laid down in statute and may accordingly significantly affect the livelihood of licensees, it would be unjustified to deny them (and incidentally the competent objector who made the complaint) the right of appeal in this case. I invite the Committee to reject these amendments.
More generally, of course restriction order provisions are important. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Brentford said about the desirability of allowing for such considerations in certain circumstances for good substantial social reasons. However, I consider that the existing provisions and their extension by Clause 34 allow for the proper consideration of all matters without the introduction, which he would like, of past or future considerations.
The Earl of Selkirk: At this time of night I shall not press my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 281C to 281E not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 281F:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Children's certificates
.—(1) Where an application is made for the grant, provisional grant or renewal of a public house licence or an hotel licence in respect of any premises the applicant may request the licensing board to grant a children's certificate in respect of the premises or such part or parts of the premises as are specified for the purpose of the request in the application.
(2) A licensing board may grant a certificate (in this section referred to as a "children's certificate") in respect of any premises, or, as the case may be, part or parts of any premises if it is satisfied—

(a) that the premises or, as the case may be, the part or parts of the premises constitute an environment in which it is suitable for children to be present; and

(b) that there will be available for sale or supply for consumption in the part of the premises in respect of which the certificate is to apply meals and beverages other than alcoholic liquor within the meaning of the principal Act.

(3) Where a children's certificate is in force in respect of any part of any premises, notwithstanding section 69 of the principal Act, and, subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be lawful for a person under 14 years of age accompanied

1217
by a person of not less than 18 years of age to be present in such part at any time when the premises are open to the public between eleven in the morning and eight in the evening for the purpose of the consumption of a meal sold supplied on the premises.
(4) When granting a children's certificate, the licensing board may attach such conditions to the grant of the certificate, including conditions restricting the hours during which and days on which children may be present in any premises or part of premises to which the certificate relates, as appear to the board to be appropriate.
(5) There shall be displayed at all times in any premises or part of such premises to which a children's certificate applies a notice of the fact that a children's certificate has been granted in respect of such premises or part.
(6) Any person who is the holder of a licence in respect of any premises to which or part of which a children's certificate applies or any employee or agent of such a person who contravenes this section or any condition attached to a children's certificate shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) The following provisions of the principal Act shall apply as regards an offence under subsection (6) above—

(a) subsections (2) and (3) of section 67, as if an entry relating to that offence appeared respectively in columns 3 and 4 of Schedule 5 to that Act; and

(b) section 71.

(8) Schedule 3A to this Act shall have effect as regards the procedure to be followed for the purposes of an application for a children's certificate.
(9) A children's certificate shall be valid—

(a) where it is granted at the same time as the grant, provisional grant or renewal of a licence, for the period of the licence;

(b) where it is granted at any other time, until the end of the period for which the licence to which it relates has effect in pursuance of section 30 of the principal Act.

(10) Where a licence is transferred in pursuance of section 25 of the principal Act, any children's certificate in respect of the premises or any part of the premises to which the licence relates shall be transferred to the new licence holder subject to the same conditions as were applied to the original grant of the certificate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The effect of this amendment and Amendment No. 281G is to insert two new clauses, the first providing for the grant of children's certificates by licensing boards, subject to certain clearly defined conditions (Clause 34A), and the second providing for the suspension of children's certificates by boards. The new schedule sets out the detailed procedure to be followed for the purpose of an application for a certificate.
On 19th May 1989 the Government announced that as part of a series of reforms of Scottish liquor licensing law children's certificates would be introduced to allow children under 14 to join their parents for a pub meal. Certificates would be granted by licensing boards in respect of licensed premises— that is, public houses and hotels— which in their view represented a suitable environment for children. I announced on Second Reading on 30th January that we would be introducing this provision by way of a government amendment.
Clause 34A allows a licensing board to grant children's certificates in respect of premises which it considers constitute a suitable environment for children. The sole criterion is the suitability of the premises for children, since all other grounds for refusal under Section 17 of the 1976 Act will have been considered by the board in the context of the
1218
licence application itself. No provision is made for applicants to appeal against the refusal of a certificate because, as with applications for regular or occasional extensions of permitted hours, we consider that boards are best placed to judge applications in the light of their detailed knowledge of local circumstances.
Those provisions are extensive but I trust that the proposed amendments will be welcomed. They are the product of detailed consultation with the licensed trade, law enforcement bodies, a wide range of other interests and the Scottish public at large. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 281G:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Suspension of children's certificate
.— (1) Where a licensing board considers that the premises or part of the premises to which a children's certificate relates no longer constitute an environment in which it is suitable for children to be present they shall decide whether or not to hold a hearing for the purpose of determining whether to suspend the certificate.
(2) Where the licensing board decides to hold a hearing as mentioned in subsection (1) above—

(a) the clerk of the board shall serve on the holder of the children's certificate, not less than 21 days before the hearing, a notice that the board proposes to hold a hearing, specifying the grounds upon which suspension of the certificate may be made;

(b) the clerk of the board shall give notice of the hearing to the chief constable;

(c) the chief constable may, not less than 7 days before the hearing, lodge notice with the clerk of the board that he wishes to be heard in support of suspension of the children's certificate specifying the grounds on which he seeks such suspension, and any such notice shall be intimated by the chief constable to the holder of the licence;

(d) the board shall not order suspension of a children's certificate without hearing the holder thereof unless, after receiving due notice of the hearing, the holder fails to appear.

(3) The period of the suspension of a children's certificate under this section shall be a fixed period not exceeding one year or the unexpired portion of the duration of the certificate, whichever is the less, and the effect of the suspension is that the certificate shall cease to have effect during the period of the suspension.
(4) Where

(a) a children's certificate has been suspended under this section, or further suspended under this subsection; and

(b) it appears to the licensing board that the grounds upon which the suspension or further suspension was made continue to obtain,

the licensing board may, not more than one month before the expiry of the period of the suspension or, as the case may be, further suspension, determine that the suspension shall be continued for a further period of one year, and this section shall have effect as regards any such further suspension as it has for the purposes of an initial suspension.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Transfer of licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 281H and 281J not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 281K:
Page 37, leave out lines 31 to 36 and insert:
(" (4C) If a licensing board refuses to transfer a licence under this section the person to whom the licence has not been transferred may appeal to the Sheriff against that refusal and the licence shall have effect until the time within which an appeal may be made has elapsed or if an appeal has been lodged until the appeal has been abandoned or determined.) -
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the transfer of a licence. There is a great deal of uncertainty and unfairness in the transfer of licences and the uncertainty can frequently mean that someone's livelihood is at stake. We shall be bringing back a whole number of points at Report stage dealing with the question of whether the licensing board is always as efficient as it could be. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am bound to say that I have some difficulty in knowing how to respond to the noble Lord regarding this particular amendment, given that I understood it to be coupled with other amendments which he has not moved.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The clause, as framed by the Government, does not take account of the purchasing of licensed premises. When the transaction is settled the purchaser acquires from the sale the title of the premises. Until that has gone through a licensing court, although he has the title to the premises it does not necessarily mean that he has the title to the licence. It is of little value merely to own the premises and not the licence.
Effectively the government proposals could mean that when premises are owned by a person whose licence has been transferred, the licence could subsequently be unconfirmed. That would be inimical to the efficient and cost-effective operation of the existing scheme of purchase and sale of licensed premises. Does that explain the position perhaps more clearly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, it does not. Perhaps I might consider what the noble Lord has said. I do not understand what he is moving in the context of that group of amendments, but I will consider the matter. If it is something that we need to sort out at Report stage, we can do so, but I think I would be wasting time to try and unravel where this particular provision lies in relation to the others.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 282:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Right of appeal to Sheriff
". In section 17 of the principal Act (grounds for refusal of application), in subsection (4), after "permanent transfer of a licence" there shall be inserted "or for the grant of a regular or occasional extension".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the fact that if a licence is refused by a licensing court there should be a right of appeal to the sheriff. Amendments Nos. 281 and 282 are too important not to have some right of appeal. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The proposal is that there should be a right of appeal to the sheriff. In our view these are judgments which the boards are best placed to make on the basis of their detailed local knowledge. The same applies, if anything with more force, in the case of occasional extensions.
The considerations involved in such decisions are not appropriate to the appellate function of the courts and the consultative exercise which we undertook revealed that a clear majority was opposed to the introduction of a right of appeal. With that brief explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Lord Advocate suggests that there has been wide consultation. I am not particularly close to the licensed trade but the general feeling I have is that there is unfairness in having no appeal. However, I shall read what the Minister said and perhaps discuss the matter with him and come back later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Observations by chief constable in relation to applications]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 282ZA:
Page 38, line 8, leave out ("the chief constable") and insert ("a relevant authority").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss also Amendments Nos. 282ZB, 282ZC, 282ZD, 282ZE, 282ZF and 282ZG. These amendments relate to Section 16 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
The amendments delete the words "chief constable" in the Bill and in their place insert the relevant islands or district authority. This is an attempt to obtain a broader basis of objection to be considered by the board rather than what might be taken as the narrower view of the chief constable who would perhaps not take the broader standpoint of the local authority. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The chief constable is in a unique position in that in terms of Section 17 (l) (c) of the 1976 Act the licensing board is required to refuse an application if undue public nuisance or a threat to public order and safety is likely to be caused. The chief constable has a professional interest and duty in relation to consideration of such issues and we consider that he should be enabled to make observations on any application where he considers this appropriate.
The interests of other authorities, while important— and I stress that to the noble Lord— do not necessarily require the same consideration in the case of every application. The district and islands

1221
councils' and fire authorities interests are, in any event, taken into account in paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the Bill, which adds the local authority and the fire authority to the list of competent objectors. Against this background, I see no need for Clause 36 to be widened in the way proposed, though I stress again that it is not that the interests of these other authorities should be ignored. They are dealt with otherwise.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for that answer. It would appear that the greater includes the lesser as far as the authorities are concerned. In the light of the answer I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 282ZB to 282ZG not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 37 [Supervision of sales of liquor in off-sale premises by persons 18 or over]:
[Amendment No. 282A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 282B not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): If Amendment No. 283 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 284A.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 39, leave out lines 17 to 28 and insert—
("shall not cause or permit a person under eighteen to make any sale of alcoholic liquor unless the sale has been specifically approved by the holder of the licence or by a person of or over the age of eighteen acting on his behalf.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine, as set out in Schedule 5.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 285, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 283.
We are now moving into the area of the supervision of the sale of liquor in off-sale premises. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Viscount Lord Falkland, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for the opportunity of discussing with him and his honourable friend the Minister at the Scottish Office the matters contained in this amendment.
I do not normally apologise to the Committee, but this is a matter of some import. If I take a little longer than your Lordships might like at this time of night, I apologise. As the Bill is currently drafted, Clause 37 would make it an offence for any outlet with three or more points of sale to allow a person under.8 to sell alcohol. However, smaller shops with fewer than three points of sale will still be allowed to have alcohol sold by persons under 18 provided that each sale is authorised.
My particular interest is a general one in retailing. It is important to appreciate that we are talking about a divisive piece of legislation. The divisiveness
1222
affects a handful— about eight or nine companies— the bulk of which are registered in England. As far as I am aware, only two are registered in Scotland. I am talking about English-registered companies trading in Scotland with all the advantages that that brings to both Scotland and the companies.
The Government claim, and have done so since we discussed this matter last year, that the measure proposed for Scotland will reduce the under-age drinking problem. They have not advanced any evidence whatever which proves that outlets with three or more points of sale are the source of alcohol consumed by under-age drinkers. They further claim that the OPCS survey of 1986 on adolescent drinking indicates that supermarkets are a significant source of supply for under-age drinkers.
At the meeting to which I have just referred, it was admitted that the survey to which I have also referred, made no distinction whatever between outlets according to their size or status. Therefore it is not possible for me to understand how the Government have been able to make the claim that they do. Moreover, the survey to which I have referred and others carried out since have shown that the home and off-licence premises such as clubs are by far the largest sources of alcohol for adolescents.
There is far more evidence against the claim that supermarkets are a significant source of alcohol for under-age persons. First, it is well accepted that under 1 per cent. of customers in supermarkets for any item whatsoever are unaccompanied persons under the age of 18. Secondly, licensing boards have reported that they do not have difficulties with supermarkets. No supermarket has ever had a licence withdrawn or a renewal refused on the ground that it had sold alcohol to persons who were under age. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has a copy of the Scottish Consumer Council report. He will be well aware of what it says in that regard. Perhaps, for the benefit of the Committee, it is sufficient to say that it agrees with the statement that I have just made.
I have before me a number of letters which support my contention. In a letter of 8th November 1989 to the Scottish Consumer Council, Renfrew district licensing board said:
"The proposed Bill was indeed drastically under-researched and discussions with the Police or Cleric of the Licensing Board in any urban area in Scotland would have provided ample information to start out on the right lines. The existing powers are adequate".
The deputy district administrator concluded his letter:
"Further, assistance to the local branches of the Scottish Council on Alcohol with their educational campaigns would be far more beneficial than legislation".
Lothian Regional Council children's panel, writing at about the same time, says:
"In fact, over the years the number of cases which have been drawn to my attention by a formal referral for a contravention of the Licensing (Scotland) Act by purchasing alcohol while under age has dwindled to nil".
The letter, written by the regional reporter of the children's panel, concludes:

1223
"Not having direct referrals, it is difficult to be definitive, but all other sources of information lead me to believe that purchasing alcohol in supermarkets is the last place that the youngsters get the drink".
The last letter I wish to quote is dated November 1989. It comes from the Edinburgh Council for the Single Homeless and is signed by the single persons officer. It states:
"Briefly we would endorse all the points made in the SCC's response to the consultation paper with particular emphasis upon:

1. That it is already illegal to sell alcohol to under age persons and very little appears to be done to enforce this.

2. In our experience illegal sales from large retail outlets such as supermarkets are not a problem. Most minors buy their alcohol from small off-licences and licensed "corner' shops".

It is fair to say that supermarkets go to elaborate lengths to avoid selling alcohol to under-age persons. That is demonstrated by their training systems and by their strict supervision of sales which is already operating in Scotland since the 1988 Act was implemented in England and Wales. The consequences of the measures contained in the Bill will be serious. They will be especially serious because they will deter supermarkets, which are large employers in Scotland, from employing under-age check-out operators. There will also be problems with training. I know that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury wishes to say a few words on that aspect.
If retailers continued to allow under-age persons to work at check-outs, such check-out points would have to be designated as no-go areas for people wishing to buy alcohol. That would cause confusion and annoyance to customers. Again that is a point which the Scottish Consumer Council set out on page 7 of its response to the consultation document.
The real point at issue here is that supermarkets— essentially those with selling places which amount to more than three check-outs— are being discriminated against. There is no justification that I have found, and nor has any been put before me, which suggests that such outlets are a prime or indeed a small source of the sale of alcohol to under-age purchasers. It seems, therefore, that companies, supermarkets such as those which my noble friend operates and a number of other outlets of repute, should not be discriminated against. If this supervisory requirement is determined by the Government, it should apply across the board. That is essentially the purport of the amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I rise to express my support for the amendment which has been so comprehensively moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I wish to add but a few points in support. However, before I do so perhaps I may say how grateful we were for the time which the Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate gave to listening to the arguments on this clause. We were invited to put such arguments forward when we reached the appropriate stage in the debate.
1224
I do not wish to repeat at length the speech I made in the debates on Jimmy Hood's Bill which was sent here from another place last year. However, there is widespread concern about the amount of under-age drinking which occurs not only in Scotland but in the whole country. A good deal of research has been carried out to ascertain the causes.
A year or so ago I was privileged to chair an ESRC conference which examined the findings of some of the research funded by the council. Under-age drinking is a great deal more widespread than is commonly assumed. A very high proportion of youngsters have their first drink in their early teens and become fairly regular drinkers later in their lives. The main source of the alcohol they obtain has been shown to be the home. For example, it may be that a child is given the chance of trying a small glass of sherry or some such substance when the rest of the family are drinking. Similarly, a youngster may be invited to share a can of beer with his father and uncles while they are on their way to a football match. There is much research along those lines.
The problem arises when the youngsters begin systematic drinking other than in the family. In normal circumstances, the family can be reckoned to control that drinking. However, when the youngsters start to obtain alcohol on their own the trouble arises. They drink too much and get into difficulties. The problem was examined exhaustively by the committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Masham. In the report of that committee and in the OPCS report to which my noble friend referred, there was evidence that among the sources of the alcohol that the youngsters get were the off-licences. As my noble friend said, the evidence discriminated between large and small off-licences.
The view of the licensing boards and of the Scottish Consumer Council is quite clear— that the law tends to be broken overwhelmingly in the smaller shops. One can well understand that the small corner shop may be struggling a bit to keep its end up. It will not be averse to selling a six-pack of lager or a half bottle of whisky or gin because the buyer happens to be under the age of 18. The off-licences are the source of the trouble.
This clause is a great improvement on what we were looking at in the Private Member's Bill last summer. However, the provision is the wrong way round because under the Bill the higher obligation of forbidding any checkout clerk under the age of 18 to make any sale— all alcohol sales have to be by checkout clerks over the age of 18— is imposed on the larger supermarkets with three or more points of sale. A lesser duty— merely that the sale has to be specifically authorised by the licensee or somebody over the age of 18— applies to the smaller supermarket with fewer than three outlets.
It is my view— and I am stating what I said at greater length last summer— that that is absolutely the wrong way round. There is no evidence that the larger supermarket are a significant source of supply of alcohol to buyers under the age of 18. Some of it may be because a gang of five youngsters outside a shop may persuade someone over the age of 18 to go in and buy a six-pack. The buyer comes out and

1225
gives them one can each and has one can free. The shop is committing an offence and if the law were to be strictly enforced, if it were thought that this had become a practice in a supermarket, the police could follow the buyer and pick him up outside. The shop has committed an offence in that it has sold alcohol to someone under the age of 18.
I think that if a few cases of that kind were brought before the courts the practice would diminish sharply. But there is nothing in the clause that will affect that. There is no evidence that the under 18 year-old buyers go into the supermarket and buy their alcohol. They are a tiny proportion of the total.
It seems to me therefore that this clause aims at the wrong target. What will its effect be? My noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover will no doubt spell this out. It is perfectly clear from the evidence of the Consumer Council, of the Retail Consortium and others that the effect will be to make shopping in the larger supermarkets more of a hassle to many consumers. There will be two queues. Customers will find that they cannot take their alcohol past the checkout point where the cashier is under the age of 18 and they will have to start all over again; or they will revert to the even less satisfactory practice of the shop within a shop.
There is the problem of training. If a youngster cannot be given cash experience on a checkout point, the training programme is infinitely less valuable under the retail trades' youth training programmes than if he can. If we are saying that a larger supermarket cannot put an under-age clerk on a checkout point because he would not be entitled to sell alcohol, we are interfering substantially with the training programme. I have seen a letter from the National Retail Training Council which substantiates that. It therefore seems to me that the amendment we have suggested is appropriate. It seeks to apply the rule which applies everywhere else in the country; namely, that sales of alcohol at off-licences should be specifically authorised by someone over the age of 18; that is to say, there should be effective supervision. We believe that is the right way to deal with this matter. To proceed as the Bill proceeds is to hit the wrong target and to impose substantial additional hassles and trouble on the shopping public and substantial extra administration and trouble on retailers.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will agree to take these arguments away and look at them again. There is no doubt that there is strong opposition to the clause as it stands in the Bill. I believe that the Government would be well advised, in the interests of obtaining sound legislation to attack what is an admitted problem, to take this matter away and consider perhaps tabling their own amendment on Report. I hope that my noble and learned friend will agree to do that.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I suggest with great respect that the clause that the Government propose may arise out of the long debate we had on what has been referred to as Jimmy Hood's Bill. However, I think it is right to remind the Committee that that Bill was the remnant of other legislation and it was under severe procedural attack. No amendment
1226
could be made to the Bill without losing the entirety of it. I believe the line proposed at that stage was that at least we could start with the supermarkets and then move on to the smaller shops.
There is no doubt that what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said about small shops has a lot of truth in it. Those of us who work in the courts— no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has experience of this in his administrative capacity in the Crown Office— know that small shops have another disability in that small shop owners are open to the threat of violence by young people. If the shop owners do not hand over the drink, they are threatened with the destruction of the shop or personal attack. That is a serious problem for small shops in some parts of Scotland. The problem of selling drink to under-age people will never be conquered. We can only do our best to limit it. If those people want to obtain drink, they will always get it. Having looked at Amendment No. 283, it seems to me that it is neatly drawn and it would be worth the while of the Government to consider it in the light of their proposed new Section 97A. The Law Society of Scotland has indicated that it thinks the distinction made in new Section 97A is an artificial one and that the present Clause 37 would prove unworkable.
The Viscount of Falkland: I wish to support absolutely what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who moved the amendment, and by his noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I also wish to thank the noble and learned Lord and his honourable friend in another place for receiving us in the Scottish Office. On that occasion I put forward views on behalf of voluntary agencies throughout the United Kingdom. I stress that fact because the experience of those who are involved with the problem of under-age drinking is that there is no great difference as regards the sources of drink for under-age purchasers. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is absolutely right. Among the more affluent classes, if I may put it that way, the home is the most common source of drink for young people.
A school friend aged 11 of my daughter obtained a bottle of gin which she shared surreptitiously with a slightly younger friend. The younger friend was taken off in a coma to the local hospital. I was slightly outraged that the authorities in the school sought to vent their rage on the two girls and rusticated them for a week without taking any measures that I could discern against the parents for making that drink available. However, among those who are less affluent the place where drink is more often obtained is the corner shop, and that is shown clearly both in Scotland and England.
As vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Alcohol Services Group, an organisation which closely monitors under-age drinking, I find that in general supermarkets take enormous pains to make sure that young people do not have access to drink. That is not to say that the situation is completely watertight because occasionally people slip through. However, it is obvious that the young person does not do the family shopping. Problems arise when they go to a supermarket and queue because they become

1227
conspicuous. Why go there? One can go to a corner shop in London and other inner city areas, and in less populated areas, and have no difficulty whatever in obtaining drink. I have asked my teenage daughters about the situation. I have also asked my son, who was at a Scottish school, and other young people. They all say that under no circumstances would they go to a supermarket to buy liquor; they would always go to the smaller outlet.
In that respect I find the Scottish attitude strange. They almost seek to exclude from their proposed legislation the outlets which are obviously the main sources of drink for young people. I shall not describe the difficulties which would be involved for the supermarkets in terms of staffing arrangements because I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will do so. However, it is a pity to legislate on a false premise. Neither does the proposal help those of us in the voluntary agencies because it is not consistent with what is happening elsewhere. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will heed what has been said.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: I must first declare an interest because I am chairman of a company which operates a large hypermarket in Edinburgh, apart from a few stores nearer home. I support with all the vigour I can the arguments put forward by my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Jenkin. They have described well the practicalities, but I wish to spell them out in a little more detail.
I believe that the Minister has not listened to those who have first-hand experience in Scotland. I know that my views are shared by all the large food retailers which sell alcohol there. They were consulted but they were not listened to. Their views are the same as mine: this is the wrong target. The proposal is also impractical and takes no account of the interests of the majority of customers or of the majority of young people who work in retail shops.
Adopting such an attitude is to treat 17 or 18 year-olds as though they are not capable and responsible. I assure the Committee that reputable companies take great pains to train and employ young people so that they take a responsible attitude to their work. The legislation is an insult to the young because it says that they cannot be trusted; it is an insult to the food companies because it says that they cannot be trusted to train their young people. It encourages them not to employ young people. It totally disregards the attitude of caring for the honest customer who is not trying to buy liquor in order to give it away to under-age people. The legislation would make it difficult for customers in Scotland to discover which check-out to use and it would discourage the employment of young people.
The legislation is most mistaken. I regret that the attitude of Ministers appears to be not to listen to those who have first-hand experience over many years of the responsibilities— we regard them seriously— of not selling drink to under-age people. As has been said, it may happen occasionally but the large supermarket and, more importantly, the customer against which the legislation is aimed do not deserve such treatment. Why differentiate just
1228
for the sake of being different between legislation for the rest of the country and legislation for Scotland? If the object is to have different legislation, that is one thing, but if it is to learn from experience over many years, I support my noble friend Lord Lucas.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is now late and some of us have been engaged on the Bill since three o'clock this afternoon. I therefore beg the Committee's indulgence if my head is not very clear.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury does not blame the Government for what has happened. The Government have followed the example of the House of Lords. As I understand the clause, it is precisely as Mr. Jimmy Hood's Bill was when it ran out of time in this House as a result of the decision of noble Lords on an amendment that I tabled.
Many issues have been at stake in the matter. Many people have been worried about it. I want the right thing for supermarkets, particularly in the West of Scotland where the problem has arisen. As I understand it, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is thinking in another way, but if it reads what had been said and becomes interested in the matter, I expect that it will get into the subject as everyone else has done and think hard about it. I notice that noble Lords opposite have not moved the amendment that they tabled, which interested me as it went in a different direction from the one tabled by noble Lords on this side of the Committee.
I want to listen to what my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench has to say and see how he responds to what the retailers have very powerfully said. They have mounted an interesting information campaign about their feelings. They are English-based, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said. They assume that the way in which the supermarkets operate in Scotland is the same as south of the Border. It is probably not all that much different. I shall listen with interest to what my noble and learned friend has to say and then see whether I am happy to leave the matter there.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It would be wrong to consider that there is anything other than widespread concern about under-age drinking in Scotland. That was expressed in response to the Scottish Home and Health Department's consultation paper on licensing law in Scotland which was issued in October 1986. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding may well recollect that that widespread concern spilled over after the Jimmy Hood Bill last year into what was, frankly, some rather unpleasant and irrational reaction to carefully presented views in this House at that time. I mention that point only to underline the degree of concern in Scotland.
In April last year a Private Member's Bill was introduced in another place, with Government support, which provided that in any off-sale premises sales of alcohol could be made only by or under the supervision of an adult; in any licensed premises with three or more points of sale, the Bill also required alcohol sales to be authorised at a separate "wrapping and pricing" point manned by adults. The

1229
Bill passed its Commons stages without amendment. This House gave unanimous support for the Bill's aims, but doubts were expressed by noble Lords about the effectiveness of the provisions in securing these aims. In the event, there was insufficient time for amendments moved and carried here to be considered in another place and the Bill did not therefore progress.
However, the Government had undertaken that should that Bill fall, relevant provisions would be included in the series of measures which form Part III of the present Bill. We consulted a wide range of trade, health, social work, law enforcement, consumer and church interests on the matter. We weighed all the responses with great care and had considered that the provisions in Clause 37 represented a moderate and necessary measure to tackle the widely acknowledged problem of under-age drinking in Scotland.
As my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour indicated, the clause incorporates the amendment she proposed in July last year which was approved by this Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, indicates that there were consultations with retail interests in Scotland but that they were not listened to. With the greatest respect, I must say to him that at the time that my noble friend Lady Carnegy moved her amendment, there were those representing, if not his own organisation, then certainly other serious and major retail organisations in Scotland who indicated that what my noble friend had tabled, which could get through in the Bill then being discussed, was a compromise that they would have considered to be a satisfactory one.
I am bound to say that while I appreciate that both my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Lucas have been wholly consistent in the line that they have maintained, there have been others who indicated that the social compromise position that we adopted was reasonable. Having said that, I find myself in a position of some difficulty because I am not entirely sure of the position now of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite. I understood that they vehemently or vigorously supported the Jimmy Hood proposals but they have now not moved their amendment which essentially took off in an opposite direction.
When we considered this subject last July, Peers such as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, sought to move the shop within a shop requirement, and that appeared to receive some support. At that time the Government considered the shop within a shop proposal too onerous for retailers. The simple supervisory requirement which at present obtains in England and Wales for all off-sale premises was not sufficient for Scotland.
There has been a wide range of views expressed, and there would appear to have been something of a shift of opinion in favour of the amendment which my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Jenkin have tabled. With that in mind it would seem that the appropriate course at this time, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin requested, is that I take back this matter and reconsider it. I should be grateful if he and my noble friend Lord Lucas would be prepared to accept
1230
that. I indicate that I have heard very clearly what has been said in the Committee this evening.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am more than grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for what he said. Perhaps I may make just two comments. First, it is not for me to answer for the Benches opposite, but it came quite clearly from the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that he would in general support what my noble friend and I were proposing. Indeed he was given to express great concern over the element of violence that may obtain in the acquisition of liquor supplies in small stores, which is a matter that the authorities would have to consider separately.
I do not wish to be pedantic about the remarks of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour regarding her blame or my blame of the Government in relation to matters discussed previously. I think that if she cares to read our debates last year she will find that tonight she has perhaps confused the tactics of that day with the strategy. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said that he will take this back. I take it that his expression includes a commitment at least to further discussion, if not to his own amendment after that further consideration. I believe that I am right in acknowledging that acquiescence from my noble and learned friend.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, I have indicated to my noble friend that if he will withdraw the amendment I shall take the matter away and have a further look at it.
What has been interesting about this part of the Bill is that otherwise there seems to be a clear degree of unanimity in what needs to be achieved on licensing. Compromises may have to be struck, but there is no sharp disagreement. However, where I thought the balance lay is not precisely where it has emerged during the course of this less than short debate. On that basis, I shall take the matter away for consideration.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps I may say a word. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, should be surprised that I withdraw the amendment. We had made that arrangement. We accepted that his amendment was very interesting and one that should be considered. My noble friend Lord Macaulay said that Jimmy Hood's Bill was under pressure and any amendment of it would have lost the whole Bill. We therefore believed that the amendment that was put down was interesting. Time has moved on and new evidence has come to light about whether there should be special outlets for the sale of alcohol in large shops. I am surprised that the noble Lord does not remember the discussion that we had last week.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am sorry. I obviously did not express myself properly. I intended to mean that it was not for me to answer why the Members on the Benches opposite took the view that they did.

1231
In the light of the assurances of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 284A and 285 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 285A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 286 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Power of police to enter clubs]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 286A:
Page 39, line 42, at end insert—
(" (lA) (a) On making his request to be permitted to enter the premises the constable shall intimate the reason for his need at that time to enter and inspect the said premises, and this reason shall be recorded in writing and a copy thereof provided for retention by the Club.
(b) Any reason given by any person refusing or obstructing a constable in the exercise of his duty in terms of section 114 (1) above shall be noted and a copy of the reason noted shall be provided for retention by the person alleged to be refusing entry or obstructing the constable.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the powers of entry into clubs which are dealt with at Clause 38. At present the clause states:
"A constable may, at all reasonable times, enter and inspect the premises of any registered club".
If we accept the principle of that, it is thought that there should be some protection for the people involved in running clubs: for example, that they are not the victims of a vendetta or vindictiveness on the part of a policeman or indeed a chief constable.
The amendment seems to have been struck by a gremlin. It should read:
"On making his request to be permitted to enter the premises the constable shall intimate the reason for his need at that time to enter and inspect the said premises, and this reason shall be recorded"—
and I do not know how the words "by the court" got in; with the Committee's permission I ask leave to delete the words "by the court"—
"in writing and a copy thereof provided for retention by the Club".
Paragraph (b) reads:
"Any reason given by any person refusing or obstructing a constable in the exercise of his duty in terms of section 114 (1) above shall be noted and a copy of the reason noted shall be provided for retention by the person alleged to be refusing entry or obstructing the constable.").
These would seem to be reasonable safeguards for the people running the club. So there can be no dubiety when it comes to the question of the club being prosectued for an offence committed by any person in the club.
Even if the Lord Advocate is not happy with the wording of the amendment, I hope he may at least give it some consideration between now and the Report stage. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clause 38 substitutes a new Section 114 (1) for the existing provisions, giving the police a new power of entry into clubs without a warrant from the sheriff. The provision seeks to mirror the entry powers available in respect of other licensed premises. However, the entry powers in the Bill are more restrictive so far as the police are concerned because they permit entry only at "all reasonable times." The amendments would require the police to provide the offender and the club with written reasons for wishing entry or for noting of entries where the police entry has been refused or obstructed. This goes far beyond the requirements in relation to powers of entry to pubs and hotels. I cannot see any justification for such a significant difference.
As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay will appreciate, there was, among those in Scotland who commented on the consultation exercise, an overwhelming majority who supported a police power of entry without a warrant, and we accept that the police should be able to enter clubs if they are satisfied that there is justification. I would not wish to impose additional burdens on the police such as the amendment would create.
If the noble Lord is concerned that clubs might find themselves subject in some way to an attitude of harassment by a particular police officer or group of police officers, I would suggest that there are sufficient arrangements already in place for them to make a complaint to the chief constable if they are so concerned. But I should not like to make any significant difference in police powers of entry between clubs and the pubs and hotels to which I referred.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for that answer. One of the reasons for asking for this particular type of approach is that when a person is in a club he really is sometimes in an extension of his home, and in fact some people might live life the other way round. But in any event it is nice to know why the privacy of the club is being invaded, so to speak, by the police; and clubs are not really akin to public houses, which are open for entry anyway. That is the reason why the amendment was put down.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his answer. I shall consider carefully what he has said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 286B:
Page 40, line 2, at end insert—
(" (2A) Where an employee or agent of a registered club commits an offence under subsection (2) above, every person whose name was, at the time when the offence was committed, contained in the list lodged under section 103 (3) (b) of this Act or, as the case may be, in the new list last lodged under section 103 (5) or (5A) of this Act in respect of that club shall be vicariously responsible for the offence and proceedings in respect of that offence may be instituted against any such person whether or not proceedings have been instituted against the employee or agent:

1233
Provided that it shall be a defence for any such person to prove that the offence occurred without his knowledge or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its occurrence.").
The noble and learned Lord said: As I have indicated, Clause 38 provides a new power to enter and inspect registered clubs at any reasonable time. This power supplements the existing police power of entry when a warrant has been obtained. Subject to a defence of due diligence, new Section 114 (2) provides that a person who refuses to admit a constable entering under new Section 114 (1), or who obstructs a constable, is guilty of an offence. After further consideration, we have come to the view that Clause 38 needs to be strengthened. This amendment provides for vicarious liability of club office bearers for these offences, and for prosecution against office-bearers simultaneously with or independently of that of employees such as door attendants. These provisions are in line with the terms of Section 67 (2) of the 1976 Act which relate to existing offences.
The noble Lord will notice that the proposed amendment also provides the standard defence of due diligence, also on the lines of Section 67 (2). I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: On a minor point of clarification, the offence is committed, according to the new Section 114 (1), by any person. That means any person, not necessarily a club member or a member of the management of the club. That means that the club management, which would know nothing about the activities of a drunk in the club who should not be there but who obstructs entry by the police, would be vicariously liable subject to the defence of due diligence. The words "any person" may be rather wide and if vicarious liability is to be imposed on the management, that should be limited. For example, in a factory accident, vicarious liability applies only in relation to the actions of the employees of the factory.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand the point raised by the noble Lord. That is why I sought to stress that there is a due diligence defence. It is not difficult to imagine that if all sorts of drunks were allowed to obstruct entry to the clubs, no one would gain entry. There, the due diligence would not be open. However, if, for example, a casual friend of a member got into a position in which he restricted access for a member of the constabulary, I have no doubt that the defence of due diligence would apply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 286C:
Page 40, line 34, after ("a") insert ("registered").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 286D:
Page 40, line 39, at end insert—
(" () After section 16 (1) of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
1234
" (1A) An otherwise not qualified group consisting of at least 25 payers of Community Charge in the locality may be accepted as an objector subject to such conditions as to how its objection is to be received as may be laid by the board".
() After section 17 (6) of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
" (7) In considering the grounds for refusal mentioned in paragraph (d) above the licensing board may have regard to and follow such knowledge as it may possess from within its own membership but it may in its own discretion obtain such additional information as it considers necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances to enable it to come to a decision which decision shall be final and not subject to review." ").
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I may speak briefly on these two proposed subsections, the purpose of which is to enhance local democracy in Scotland.
The idea of the provision for 25 community charge payers in the locality to have a say is to enable members of the community to make their own comments direct to the licensing board. It is shown that there must be a substantial number so that an odd person or very small group of people cannot come within the meaning of this clause. Any trivial comments by one or two people would be omitted.
It is difficult for legislation to lay down exactly the interested parties who may be involved in any locality. However, I submit that the first proposed subsection allows for greater local democracy within a community.
As regards the second subsection, I quote as accurately as I can remember the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate a few moments ago: "The decision of the licensing board should be final and appeal to the sheriff should be considered inappropriate in these circumstances". Matters as outlined should fall within the domain of the local democracy. The licensing board members are, as the Committee will know, elected district councillors. This is a question of fact which they should have the right to decide without any appeal to the sheriff. This amendment would enable the licensing board to take steps to obtain the information which seems appropriate to make a decision on such over-provision as there may be of facilities in their locality. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to recommend a change in the first part of the amendment. Instead of the words "payers of the community charge", it would be better if it read "at least 25 members of the electorate". That is a better wording.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have to say to the noble Viscount that I cannot envisage a situation where the first part of this amendment would be necessary. At present the list of competent objectors is in Section 16 (1) of the Act and includes any person owning or occupying property within the neighbourhood of the premises to which a licence relates. I should have thought that that covered any community charge payer who lived in the vicinity of the relevant property. Section 16 (1) also refers to any organisation which, in the opinion of the board, represents owners or occupiers. In practice that also includes groups of local community charge payers.

1235
The noble Viscount, in moving this amendment, clearly is not envisaging just any 25 community charge payers within the local government area, but within the locality. I hope I can assure him that what is at present provided for effectively meets his concern that local individuals should have a right to be heard.
The second part of the amendment also appears to be unnecessary as licensing boards may use the discretion available to them in using local knowledge to decide whether or not to grant a licence. However, the reference in the amendment to the decision of the licensing board being final and not subject to review is not acceptable. If the board is minded to refuse a licence application on the basis of some factor which was not the subject of an objection but was arrived at during the board's consideration of the application, then the board, in equity, must let the applicant have details of its reasons so that he is able to comment on them.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Brentford: I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for his explanation. At this hour of the night I will certainly look at what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, taking note of the advice of my noble and learned friend for the alteration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 286DA.
After Clause 38 insert the following new Clause—
(". The requirement that a restricted hotel licence, a restaurant licence or a refreshment licence should not be granted in respect of premises which contain a bar counter shall cease to have effect, and accordingly Schedule 1 to the principal Act (types of licence) shall have effect with the omission of the references to premises which do not contain a bar counter.") "
The noble Lord said: This is a short amendment bringing the licensing of small hotels and guest houses up to date. As it stands one needs a definition of "bar counter". I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate must have noticed at conferences and around Scotland that every boarding house now has a little bar. It seemed to me that strict application of the existing law of the types of licence required in Schedule 1 to the parent Bill makes those premises illegal. That seemed a little silly and this amendment brings that situation up to date. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The effect of this amendment would be to bring hotels with a restricted licence, restaurants and refreshment establishments into line with public houses and hotels. The present Act differentiates between those establishments whose main function is to serve alcoholic liquor and those whose main function is the provision of food with drink as an ancillary.
1236
The main distinction is that a bar is the main feature of the former and is not permitted in the latter. The amendment, if carried, would enable those establishments without a bar to provide one, thereby making them no different from public houses and hotels, but without the conditions which apply to public house and hotel licence applications.
While I understand the de minimis point made by the noble Lord, I would be truly apprehensive that that would be a backdoor method of providing public house facilities without providing a public house licence. With those anxieties in mind it is not a proposal I can support.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I can see the problem. There is also a problem in the definition of what a "bar" is. We all know what is meant by a little cocktail bar; some get bigger but do not quite reach the public bar standard. I am sure we shall return to this at some point, perhaps not in this Bill, but fairly soon, However, I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Income-based fines experiment]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 286E:
Page 46, line 21, at end insert ("weekly").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is simply a rectifying amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 286F:
Page 46, line 35, at end insert (" (any fractions of a week being rounded off as follows—
one third of a week; 2 days
two thirds of a week; 5 days) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment simplifies the task of calculating a period of imprisonment for non-payment of fines when an income-based fines order is in operation. The ratio of the offence factor to the number of weeks' imprisonment to be imposed in default is three to one and there is a difficulty with the practical application of this unless the offence factor is a multiple of three. For example, if the offence factor is seven, the number of weeks' imprisonment in default would be two-thirds. This obviously creates problems for prison and court authorities. These problems can be avoided with this amendment which rounds up any fraction of a week.
I regret having to move a complicated algebraic formula at this time of night but it is a simplification. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons on Friday last agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before midnight.

  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS IN NORTHERN FRANCE
  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS IN NORTHERN FRANCE
  REMAND SYSTEM: PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT
  REMAND SYSTEM: PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT
  WOMEN PRISONERS: SICKNESS STATISTICS
  WOMEN PRISONERS: SICKNESS STATISTICS
  HOLLOWAY PRISON, C1 UNIT
  HOLLOWAY PRISON, C1 UNIT
  HELICOPTER LANDING FACILITIES IN LONDON
  HELICOPTER LANDING FACILITIES IN LONDON
  "NEXT STEPS": NEW DoT AGENCIES
  "NEXT STEPS": NEW DoT AGENCIES
  RO-RO PASSENGER SHIPS: SAFETY MEASURES
  RO-RO PASSENGER SHIPS: SAFETY MEASURES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HOUSE SEARCHES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HOUSE SEARCHES
  NUCLEAR POWERED WARSHIPS SAFETY COMMITTEE
  NUCLEAR POWERED WARSHIPS SAFETY COMMITTEE
  NATO MILITARY EXPENDITURE
  NATO MILITARY EXPENDITURE
  NUCLEAR WORKERS: RECOMMENDED RADIATION LIMIT
  NUCLEAR WORKERS: RECOMMENDED RADIATION LIMIT
  CENTRAL VETERINARY LABORATORY AND VETERINARY MEDICINES DIRECTORATE
  CENTRAL VETERINARY LABORATORY AND VETERINARY MEDICINES DIRECTORATE
  MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA, TELFORD: APPEAL
  MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA, TELFORD: APPEAL
  THE HERITAGE: DoE EXPENDITURE ON CONSULTANCY
  THE HERITAGE: DoE EXPENDITURE ON CONSULTANCY
  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES: EFFICIENCY SCRUTINY
  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES: EFFICIENCY SCRUTINY
  BALTIC REPUBLICS: SELF-DETERMINATION
  BALTIC REPUBLICS: SELF-DETERMINATION
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE
  FORESTRY COMMISSION: STANDING TIMBER SALES
  FORESTRY COMMISSION: STANDING TIMBER SALES