Sitting of 18 April 1990

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

    Manufactured Goods (Exports)
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of exports of manufactured goods to Japan in 1989.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The level of United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods to Japan in 1989 was £1,938 million, an increase of 29 per cent. over 1988.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not that welcome answer show that the standards and quality of British manufacturing are very high? Is not that why we sell so well to countries such as Japan? Is it true that the British kitemark on British products is taken as a symbol of that quality? Would not those who are trying to export to Japan be well advised to have the kitemark on their products because people recognise it throughout the world?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. The great growth in our exports to Japan is gratifying and, I believe, based on greatly improved British quality—which was not the case some time ago. The more that can be done to underline that quality in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, the better.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not it true that Japan has a massive trade surplus with Britain, and has had for many years? The amount to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is a flea bite compared with the amount of Japan's trade with Britain. Is not it also true that the meeting of Finance Ministers last week discussed ways to try to coax Japan to take more British and American goods? Did not Japan refuse to take skis manufactured in Britain because it has a different sort of snow? Did not it refuse —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can start this new part of the Session with hon. Members asking single questions; otherwise it is not fair for other hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not it true that Japan refused to import cosmetics from other countries because the Japanese have a different sort of skin? Did not it refuse to take oranges from the Third world because it says that Japanese stomachs are too small?
    Mr. Ridley: We are on course to meet our target of doubling our exports to Japan in the three years to 1990. That is quite an achievement. We have a trade deficit with Japan, but so does practically every other nation. Of the European countries, Britain has the second highest rate of export growth.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British leather industry would like to enjoy the 29 per cent. increase to which he referred? Is he further aware that ever since trade with Japan began, there have been artificial barriers to such exports? Will my right hon. Friend, on a personal basis, make the strongest possible representations to the EEC to ensure that those artificial barriers—which prevent the best leather in the world from being exported to Japan—are lifted?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is one of the areas in which the Japanese have failed to liberalise their markets, and I intend to raise the matter with them when I visit Japan in the summer. I shall make my hon. Friend's point with such force as I can command.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: What impact is the policy of high interest rates having on investment and therefore on our long-term ability to export to Japan and elsewhere? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that receiverships have increased by 109 per cent. over the first quarter of 1989? What help is it to exporters to have, in addition to high interest rates, cuts in export services, cuts in research and development help for firms, and even cuts in the consultancy service that was set up only a few months ago?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must know that investment is coming into Britain from Japan at ever greater rates. That helps us to increase our exports. We are now exporting motor cars to Japan. I do not understand how interest rates affect that process. The hon. Gentleman quoted figures, which he also gave in a newspaper recently, for alleged cuts in services provided to industry by my Department. He probably does not realise that last year there was a shortfall in take-up of those services. The demand for them fell, so it was not possible to meet the budget for that year. There have been no budgetary cuts. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework before he makes silly allegations.
    Mr. David Martin: On a recent visit to Japan I was impressed by the Department's initiatives, through Opportunity Japan, and by the calibre and quality of the British embassy staff, from the ambassador downwards, who were implementing that policy. I hope that during his visit my right hon. Friend will do all that he can to promote structural changes which will advance the steps that have already been taken and will make clear to British business the opportunities in Japan which did not exist as recently as a few years ago.
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, in particular for the tribute that he paid to staff in our embassy in Japan, and during my visit I shall pass on his tribute to those concerned. I agree that the Opportunity Japan campaign has been a great success. I will take every possible measure to increase that success in the time ahead.

    Steel
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I have every confidence that there is a bright future for the United Kingdom steel industry now that all of it is in the private sector and free from Government interference.
    Mr. Mitchell: A declaration of confidence from the Government in their present state is more a kiss of death than an endorsement. As domestic demand for steel is likely to be depressed because of what the Government are doing to deflate the economy, will the Minister have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and tell him that the only way to encourage exports and to stop capacity being closed in this country is to get the pound down to a competitive level so that industry can compete effectively in Europe?
    Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's continued contact with the non-socialist world—he is, of course, a valued and I think well-paid employee of one of Mr. Murdoch's companies—has enabled him to ask the kind of question to which I am extremely happy to respond. As the House will know, as a result of Government policy there has been a transformation in the British steel industry. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the industry made huge losses and required vast subsidies. I am glad that it is now among the most profitable and productive steel industries in the world.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend take it from one who has a steelworks in his constituency that the steel industry is doing extremely well and that one thing that would set it back would be for the Government once again to start interfering in the running of that great industry?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There are various ways to measure the transformation, but one way is in terms of productivity. In 1980, the United Kingdom produced 84 tonnes per man year. I am happy to say that by 1988 that had increased to 347 tonnes per man year —a staggering transformation which has made the United Kingdom steel industry among the most productive and efficient in the world.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: If there is such confidence in the steel industry, and if such a transformation has been wrought, why has Sir Robert Scholey of British Steel twice refused to meet shop stewards from the Ravenscraig and Dalziel plants in Scotland? As there is every likelihood of a £700 million profit this year in steel, will the Minister monitor the level of investment in that industry in Scotland and ensure that meetings take place between Scottish representatives and the chairman?
    Mr. Hogg: There are no ifs and buts about the transformation. It is certain. Let me give the House some more figures which might also help the hon. Lady. In 1979–80 British Steel lost £1,784 million, which transferred into current terms is £3,359 million. I am happy to say that in 1988–89 British Steel made a profit of £593 million. In the first half of 1989–90, it made a profit of £423 million. The transformation is real; there are no ifs or buts about it.

    Manufactured Goods (Exports)
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the growth in exports of manufactured goods to the European Community since 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Exports of manufactured goods to the European Community have risen from £13 billion in 1979 to £38 billion in 1989, an increase of £25 billion.
    Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the last three months for which figures are available visible exports from Britain to the European Community increased by 11 per cent., whereas imports increased by only 0·5 per cent.? If those figures are correct, do not they show that the trend is very much in the right direction?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. The trend is certainly in the right direction. The figures relate to all our visible trade with EC and non-EC countries. It is most encouraging to see the trade balance improving, as forecast by the Treasury and by a variety of external forecasters. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) did not remain to hear the rest of these questions. He has been saying that the trade balance is not improving. How wrong he is, but how right it is that the trade balance is improving, as we expected, because British industry is responding well.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister give the figures for 1979 and 1989 of imports from other European countries to the United Kingdom and compare them with the figures that he gave earlier?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is right that imports from the European Community have risen. As one would expect, there has been a big increase in imports and exports as we benefit from more trading patterns with Europe. Comparing the figures for 1979 and 1989, the balance is not much different. The proportion of imports from the European Community in 1989 was similar to the proportion in 1979.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of his trade mission last month to Poland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. Ridley: Together with a group of business men, I visited the Soviet Union and Poland from 10 to 17 March.
    Poland is making rapid progress towards replacing socialist economic policies with a free market. There are good opportunities for British investors. In the Soviet Union, the pace of change is slower.
    Mr. Field: A principal reason for my right hon. Friend's visit to Russia and Poland was to urge them to introduce a commercial and legal framework to reassure entrepreneurs and businesses that they could invest with confidence. How did he succeed on that and on currency convertibility and the ending of import licensing? Does he agree that, with only £197 million of exports to Poland last year, it is much too important a market to be left to West German business men?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. We need a proper framework of law and rules on pricing, insolvency payments, debt collection, monopolies and subsidies controls before they can become full market trading countries. The prospects of anything transpiring are less in Russia than in Poland, which is trying as hard as possible to put in place the essential commercial infrastructure. That will help us greatly to invest, to Poland's benefit as well as to ours, and to increase trade. At the moment, the Poles have a shortage of hard currency and are unable to purchase much from the west. It will be much better when Poland has achieved convertibility. We urged it to achieve fully convertible currency at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Hood: During his mission, did the Secretary of State discuss with the Polish people the failure of the British free market capitalist system? Did he explain why we have a massive trade deficit and high interest rates and why small businesses are going bankrupt by the day? The Government have introduced the uniform business rate, which will bankrupt even more. Did the right hon. Gentleman hold that up to the Poles as an example for their future economic strategy?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not know which country the hon. Gentleman is talking about. He might like to know that since 1981 manufacturing output in this country has gone up by 32 per cent.; manufacturing productivity has gone up by 51 per cent.; profits have increased by four times; and manufacturing investment has been growing at a real rate of 5·5 per cent. a year. The hon. Gentleman seems to have mixed up the two countries. Anyone would have thought that he was talking about Poland. It would be a disaster to try to apply east European methods of economic management, as they have been hitherto, to the very successful British economy. It should be the other way round.
    Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Opposition for underselling this country at every opportunity? Does he agree that should the Soviet Union and the Polish nation seek help in setting up free economies on the lines of our banking and business world, we will give them every possible assistance, despite the efforts of the Opposition?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Britain is viewed everywhere—except among Opposition Members—as one of the world's most successful economic transformations. We are sufficiently well off to be able to provide a £50 million know-how fund to help the Poles to set in place the essential infrastructure to which my hon. Friend referred. At the same time, we have made generous contributions to various funds, including £15 million for agriculture, £190 million towards EEC assistance and $100 million to the stabilisation fund.
    Mr. Beith: Will not the Secretary of State have to have further discussions with his counterparts in the Soviet Union if events in Lithuania move towards some kind of economic blockade? Will not he need to make it clear to his Soviet counterparts that he will facilitate any trade arrangements that may be necessary to ensure that essential supplies and commodities can be made available to the people of Lithuania?
    Mr. Ridley: It is not for me to answer for foreign policy towards Lithuania. All that I can say is that we are
    1412
    watching the situation very carefully and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will take any action that he deems to be correct at the right time.

    Trade Barriers
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to discuss trade barriers with Switzerland and other European Free Trade Association countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the ambassadors of Switzerland and other EFTA countries on 2 May when there will be an opportunity to discuss a range of subjects.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that since the EFTA countries trading together form the European Community's largest trading partner, the creation of a European economic space must be the main objective of the British Government's relations with EFTA?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. Between 1972 and 1984 tariff barriers came down and from 1984 onwards, under the Luxembourg declaration, there was progress to include EFTA in a number of market-opening measures to bring our markets closer together. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that negotiations will be under way to see whether we can bring EFTA into a common European economic space with the European Community, and Britain is at the forefront of member states urging that upon our Commission and Community partners.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is desirable to extend the European economic space, alongside it must be mutual obligations on a wide range of issues, including non-tariff barriers, state aids and the openness of stock markets in countries apart from the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right, and some of those matters were already covered by the Luxembourg declaration. Many EFTA countries are making good progress in reducing state aids and implementing sensible economic policies. I wish that some Opposition Members would begin to learn from those economic policies. They still seem to be wedded to massive interventionism, which is illegal for a member of the European Community and which is no longer practised by many EFTA states. The Government are determined to see the European Community police those disciplines of fair trading within the Community and throughout EFTA where we have the necessary agreements so to do.

    Stock Exchange
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the stock exchange; and what will be discussed.
    Mr. Ridley: Ministers meet the chairman of the stock exchange whenever appropriate to discuss topics of mutual interest.
    Mr. Doran: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the stock exchange, will he discuss with him fraud and investor protection in the City? As we move

    1413
    towards 1992, with the present high levels of fraud and lack of investor protection in the City, is not business likely to flow from Britain rather than to come here?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government have put in place four specific measures to provide a strong legislative framework to regulate the activities of the City. The previous legislation was woefully inadequate. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has abolished stamp duty on share dealing, which will help to make London remain the centre of European financial activity, and I am confident that it will.
    Mr. Hanley: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Labour party that this Government introduced a criminal offence for insider dealing and for trading in investment business without a licence? It ill-befits the Labour party to complain about our form of regulation. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm his confidence in self-regulation as a principle in the City?
    Mr. Ridley: I have never understood why the Labour Government of 1974 did not proceed with the previous Government's plans to put in place legislation on insider dealing and other matters and why, during all their six-year tenure, they passed no legislation to deal with that problem. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to that grievous omission. I also agree with my hon. Friend's latter remarks.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While welcoming the tightening up in the City, may I ask the Secretary of State to agree that there may be a need for a revision of the guidelines for the futures and options markets for the protection of investors?
    Mr. Ridley: It will be for the Securities and Investments Board to consider whether changes are needed. With the system of self-regulation that we have in place, it is for practitioners, guided by the SIB, which has authority, to decide how best to ensure that regulation is of the highest standard but at the lowest possible cost.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the stock exchange, will he ask what lessons could have been learnt from the ombudsman's report on Barlow Clowes? Will he ask him whether the class 1 circular issued upon the reverse takeover of Barlow Clowes by James Ferguson (Holdings) plc in April 1987 should have contained more information about the trading relationship between Barlow Clowes and Barlow Clowes International?
    Mr. Ridley: All that I can say is that I will draw my hon. Friend's comments and questions to the attention of the chairman of the stock exchange. It is not for me to reopen those questions, as the Financial Services Act 1986 has transferred the responsibility elsewhere.

    Post Office
    Mr. Boateng: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Post Office.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I will next meet the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, on 4 May.
    Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister confirm the Government's commitment to the Royal Mail as a national public monopoly? Will he assure the House that he has not fallen prey to the predatory exercises of those who want to get their hands on the choicest cuts of the Royal Mail while leaving the ordinary consumer to the mercy of an inferior service? How much are the Government committed to the Royal Mail and to a service for all consumers?
    Mr. Forth: The answer to the question is yes. We are convinced that the future of the postal service must involve a service that is universal in its coverage and operates at a standard price for all its users. We are confident that the management and employees of the Post Office are dedicated to a constant improvement in the service that they operate for the people of this country. That has the full backing of the Government.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that competition is good and monopoly is bad and that before any future European directives are issued those basic facts should be taken into account?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, that is right. In this country and throughout the Community, we must try to establish that balance of universal coverage which is appropriate and necessary to provide a level of service with the maximum reasonable and available competition so as to give the maximum benefit to all our users and consumers. We are absolutely dedicated to achieving that.
    Mr. Beggs: Prior to meeting the chairman of the Post Office, will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry consult his colleagues, including his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, about the possibility of enabling constituents throughout the United Kingdom to purchase motor vehicle road fund licences from post offices, and will he then discuss that with the chairman of the Post Office?
    Mr. Forth: That is as much, if not more, the responsibility of the Department of Transport and of my right hon. and hon. Friends there as it is of this Department. I am aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed because it is something with which all hon. Members have to deal on a constituency basis. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are constantly seeking to ensure the best and most effective coverage for all parts of the kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman has a constituency case, I assure him that I and my colleagues will look most carefully at it.
    Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer to the original question will be most welcome to the chairman of the Post Office and to all its employees? Will he confirm that there is a danger that the European directive on postal services could introduce barriers to new entrants to the market? Will he assure the House that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to ensure that that does not happen?
    Mr. Forth: First, I assure my hon. Friend that as yet there is no directive. A group of senior officials, including

    1415
    officials from my Department, are considering the possibility of publishing a Green Paper—a discussion document—to try to establish the correct place for the postal services in the single market of the European Community. That work is continuing. At the moment, we do not envisage that the Green Paper will emerge until later this year. At that point, it will have to be widely considered throughout the Community and by the Council of Ministers and even then, there will have to be a lot of consultation.
    Secondly, I am aware that concern has been expressed about this matter throughout the United Kingdom. I assure everybody that the directive is at the very earliest stage. Although we agree that it is correct to identify the right place for postal services within the Community, equally it is the Government's intention to provide the maximum area of freedom of operation for those who wish to provide alternative services complementary to the postal monopoly.

    Car Manufacturers
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the major car manufacturers; and what will be discussed.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Secretary of State and I regularly meet the major car manufacturers to discuss a variety of issues.
    Mr. Clarke: When the Minister and his hon. Friend next meet the manufacturers, will they discuss Britain's huge £6·5 billion deficit in automotive products? Can the Minister offer any positive proposals to reduce that deficit and can he tell the House why such a huge deficit exists in such a crucial industry?
    Mr. Hogg: It was perhaps a misfortune for the hon. Gentleman to concentrate so much on import penetration because he should know that import penetration occurred during the period of office of the last Labour Government. I will give the House the exact figures. In 1974, import penetration was 27·9 per cent., in 1979 it was 56·3 per cent., and at present it is about 57 per cent., so the process of import penetration took place under the Labour Government. Under the Conservative Government, however, there has been an extraordinary transformation in our indigenous capacity. Let us consider the past five years: in 1984 we produced about 909,000 units, in 1989 we produced 1·299 million units and by the mid-1990s we are likely to be producing about 2·2 million units.
    Sir Dudley Smith: When my hon. Friend the Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mext meets the major car manufacturers, will he press upon them the need to sustain and encourage the car component industry in Britain, particularly in the west midlands? Is my hon. Friend aware that although it is not how we do things here, in some countries there would be positive discrimination in favour of such an industry?
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Fortunately, we are seeing a huge increase in Britain's motor car manufacturing capacity. Inevitably, that provides a great opportunity for the automotive component industry and I am pleased to say that the industry is taking advantage of it. Whenever there is
    1416
    inward investment in relation to the motor industry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I stress the importance of United Kingdom sourcing.
    Mr. Henderson: In the light of yesterday's announcement by Honda of the details of its 20 per cent. stake in Rover, at a price of £104 million, which gives the Rover division of British Aerospace a market value of more than £500 million excluding property assets and the DAF investment, will the Government still be making representations to the European Commission to the effect that the £56 million in sweeteners identified by the National Audit Office on a sale price of £150 million were none the less necessary to sell the company?
    Mr. Hogg: The figures just read out rather painfully by the hon. Gentleman illustrate the value and importance of putting such companies into the private sector. One thing is plain. When Rover was sold to British Aerospace it was not worth the valuation suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The transformation of Rover is entirely consequent on the fact that it is operated productively and prosperously in the private sector.
    Mr. Roger King: Will my hon. Friend take time out to meet the car manufacturers trade unions, in particular those which represent Ford workers, so that we may never again see a Dundee or Bridgend where phase 2 of the development of the Zeta engine has been deferred and transferred to German factories on the continent? Is not it a fact that the trade unions at that company still have to learn that their rhetoric during the recent Ford dispute to the effect that they had the power to stop Ford throughout Europe did more damage to them, their jobs and their futures than to anyone else?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The plain truth is that while Ford remains committed to the United Kingdom, it has the capacity to put work elsewhere. It made the decision not to put the Zeta engine phase 2 at Bridgend partly
    "because of the unreliability of supply experienced in recent years".
    The Labour party must realise that if it supports industrial action or inflationary wage settlements, as it always does, that policy will be paid for in lost jobs.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The future of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry depends on its ability to win orders in the face of international competition. The Government provide substantial support to the industry to assist its return to normal competitive conditions.
    Mr. Galloway: Is the Minister aware that the cost of building a ship has doubled in the past few years, yet worldwide demand for shipbuilding is booming and shipowners are falling over themselves to place new orders? In the light of that, do the Government not regret having done in the past 10 years what the Luftwaffe failed to do and closed down the great majority of British merchant shipbuilding capacity?
    Mr. Hogg: That was a foolish question, and an ignorant one. As for our shipbuilding capacity, there are now about 33,000 people in the shipbuilding industry. I am happy to say that the order books are good and the yards are not losing money. When the Labour party was in power, the industry lost vast sums of money and required huge subsidies. That is not the proper way to use economic resources.
    Mr. Barry Field: Is not it a fact that my hon. Friend fought like a tiger for the retention of the shipbuilding intervention fund, thus demonstrating that he is not the British shipbuilding industry's enemy but its friend?
    Mr. Hogg: I am flattered by the analogy. Some tiger! I should have said, "Some hog!" None the less, I will accept the compliment and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is our intention, in time, to return shipbuilding to proper market conditions, but at present we thought it right that there should be a 20 per cent. ceiling on the intervention fund. We are comfortable with that figure, but our policy is to reduce the ceiling.
    Ms. Quin: Is not it the case that in the world shipbuilding league, the United Kingdom is behind not only Japan and South Korea, but West Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, East Germany, Poland, Brazil, Finland and Yugoslavia? Given that fact, is not it tragic that the Government connived at the closure of the Sunderland yards even when there were bidders prepared to operate those yards without subsidy?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady always runs down British shipbuilding—[Interruption.] I always try to be nice to her. I think that she does that because she does not know the facts. I will give her one encouraging piece of information. In the first quarter of 1989—the last period for which I have an exact figure—the proportion of world orders taken up by British shipbuilding yards substantially increased. I hope that the hon. Lady will be pleased at that.
    We tried for 18 months to find a buyer for the Sunderland yards, and failed. Consequently, we put in place a closure package, of which we notified the European Commission and had it accepted. That package has greatly diversified Sunderland's economy and given the town a much better economic future than it would otherwise have had.

    Cot Deaths
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he first became aware of Dr. Barry Richardson's research into cot deaths; and what action he then took to alert the public.
    Mr. Forth: The Department of Health wrote to my Department about Dr. Barry Richardson's research on 7 June 1989. A copy of Dr. Richardson's report dated June 1989 was received on 12 June. As a direct result the laboratory of the Government chemist was asked to undertake a scientific assessment of this research work.
    In a written reply on 9 March, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health stated that a group of independent experts had been asked to investigate further claims by Dr. Richardson about emission of toxic gases from soiled mattresses, taking account of the assessment still being carried out by the laboratory of the Government chemist.
    1418
    I shall await the findings of the expert working group to see if there are any implications for the use of fire resistant treatments in the manufacture of nursery furniture.
    Mr. McFall: The Minister will know that the independent scientist, Barry Richardson, to whom he referred, tested 45 mattresses on which babies had died. All the mattresses were fireproofed and gave off potentially lethal doses of poisonous gases. In the light of that, why did the Minister force through legislation on fire retardent material without conducting tests? Why was no warning given to parents of the risk, however small? Is that not an indication of the Government's laxity with regard to such measures?
    Mr. Forth: One of the problems in relation to this difficult subject is shown by the fact that one of the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary colleagues came to argue exactly the opposite case with me when I had to make that difficult decision. On the basis of the information known to us then, we maintained our views about fire resistance for nursery furniture. I am awaiting the findings of the work being carried out both by the laboratory of the Government chemist and by the expert working group set up precisely to examine Dr. Richardson's claims.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it would be wrong of the Government to determine their policy on the basis of one person's findings, no matter how skilled or expert that person may be or how strongly he holds his views. Suffice it to say that both my Department and the Department of Health are looking into the matter carefully and responsibly, but with as much speed as possible and based on their findings we shall decide whether policy should be changed.
    Sir Dudley Smith: I appreciate the problems, but is my hon. Friend aware that this man's evidence is very convincing and has been brought to my attention by constituents who are involved in the trade? In those circumstances, will my hon. Friend do everything to hurry up the research because, as he well knows, young lives are at stake every day?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has made repeated representations to me on behalf of his constituent who shares the concern expressed by Dr. Richardson. I hope that he will accept that at this stage it would be best for all of us to wait until we have the findings of the laboratory of the Government chemist and of the expert working group that we have set up. Then we shall determine whether policy shall be changed. As a result of my hon. Friend's representations and others that I have received, we are more than prepared to change policy in this matter if it is determined that we should do so on the basis of the evidence of the further work that is being done. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not allow that work to be unduly delayed.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that there is almost no remaining doubt that there is an association, found by Dr. Richardson and his team, between cot death syndrome and the gases produced by the fungal infection of mattresses? Why has he delayed an investigation into the findings for two years? The chief medical officer put out a press statement on 9 March stating that he had been
    "advised that no case of cot death in this country had been reported due to these gases".

    1419
    Why did not the chief medical officer seek such information? That is why the information was not provided. Moreover, the expert working party has met only once. This is not urgency—it is complacency.
    Mr. Forth: I wish in some ways that I could share the hon. Gentleman's certainty. Faced with these difficult policy choices and with serious matters which cause great concern to many people, I believe that we are taking a responsible and measured view and responding in that way.
    Dr. Richardson met the chief medical officer at the Department of Health, so there was no lack of a hearing for him on these matters. I can only repeat that I believe that the way in which we have responded to these submissions by an individual, however expert and concerned he may be, is the right way and that we cannot determine Government policy in these important areas on the basis of the views of one person, no matter how important he may be.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Watson. Question 23.
    Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the last question—
    Mr. Speaker: If it does, it cannot be a point of order.
    Mr. Favell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the reason why so many Opposition Members have not turned up to ask their questions—
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I call Mr. Watson.
    Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Watson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Frank Field. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Tony Lloyd. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Home Robertson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Ronnie Campbell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Rowlands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."]
    Mr. Favell: I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that questions have been asked by Opposition Members according to their surnames. If the name is McCartney or McFall, the Member is interested in cot deaths. If the name is Mahon or McKay—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. It is a point that he is consciously making across the Chamber. I call Mr. Snape. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Fisher. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Eadie. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here. "]

    EC Trade and Industry Ministers
    Mr. Cunliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet his counterparts in the European Commission; and what will be discussed.
    Mr. Redwood: I am surprised that an Opposition Member has turned up to ask a question. I hold regular meetings with my counterparts in the European Commission on a broad range of issues.
    Mr. Cunliffe: If and when the Secretary of State meets the European Commission, will he convey to it the
    1420
    impoverished state of the north-western region and the fact that it is imperative that the region should get more money from European grant sources to help clear up the industrial obsolescence, bad housing and bad environment caused by 10 years of neglect by the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been trying to find a question to ask because he has asked one in which he is not interested. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is here and has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. My right hon. Friend will speak for the whole country when he speaks to the European Commission and the other member states. We shall ensure that we get our fair share of grants and assistance from the European Community, but we are also interested in sensible budget discipline because the best way to make people prosperous is to deregulate and to get out of their way—not to take their money away from them and then give it back with a deduction for handling charges.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: How dare the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) so cry down the north-west? Is my hon. Friend aware that the north-west is improving in terms of prosperity, that its employment rate is improving with every week that passes and that it does not assist our case when Labour Members constantly cry us down?
    Mr. Redwood: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made that powerful intervention. Many Members from the north-west are rightly proud of the achievements of the north-western economy. As I travel through the country I notice how much investment, employment and opportunities are growing in the regions—more so now than in the south-east where the slow-down is more marked than in the regional economies. We welcome that surge in prosperity and believe that it is the direct result of the policies being pursued to allow enterprise to triumph and inward investment to stimulate the industrial base.
    Mr. Pike: When the Secretary of State has discussions in Europe, will he consider why there is longer-term investment in industry in Germany than there is here? There is still a lack of industrial investment in the north-west. Would not we do better if we followed the German example and our financial institutions made longer-term investments in our manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Redwood: There is much good long-term investment going on in this country today if only the hon. Gentleman would use his eyes and see what is happening. British industry would rightly resent his idea that it is not interested in long-term investment. I see many factories going up, many new projects, and a rebuilding of the motor car industry. That is all too obvious to those who look at the figures and travel throughout the country. Real manufacturing investment is up by a third over the past five years. I welcome that and I am grateful for it. It shows that the enterprise policies are working.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: When negotiating with his counterparts a reduction in tariffs to be carried out by the Commission through the general agreement on tariffs and trade, will my hon. Friend draw attention to the position of Turkey vis-a-vis Europe? It is the largest importer of textile goods into the European Community and although we allow goods in tariff-free it has effective import barriers

    1421
    of 200 per cent. to our exports there. Although it has reduced its tariffs nominally, its special tariffs—for example, for contributions to its housing funds—remain in place and constitute an effective barrier against British exports.
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important question and I shall draw its substance to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Trade. It is a matter of concern if liberalisation does not progress on both sides and it is an aim of EC policy to see that barriers are removed against Turkish exports as and when Turkey reduces its barriers to our exports to that country. My hon. Friend can rest assured that my noble Friend will continue to make strong representations about any unfair obstacles to trade imposed by Turkey.

    House of Fraser
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what latest representations he has had on his inspectors' report on the takeover of the House of Fraser; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a large number of representations from hon. Members and direct from the public expressing a variety of views.
    Mr. Nellist: How is it that crooks and charlatans can get away with things like that takeover while millions of ordinary, decent families in Britain are about to be pushed into a position of illegality because of their inability to pay the poll tax? Why cannot the Secretary of State, with his hands-off laissez-faire attitude towards the Fayed brothers, be transferred back to the Department of the Environment so that he can take the same attitude to the millions of families who cannot pay the poll tax?
    Mr. Redwood: The Law Officers and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have looked carefully into the case and a full statement has been made to the House about it. I have nothing further to add.
    Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that legislation has now been introduced which will prohibit the same sort of thing happening again? But is it not also a fact that inspectors from the Department of Trade and Industry were appointed under a certain section under which it was not a criminal offence to tell untruths, whereas if they had been appointed under a different section, criminal action could have been taken?
    Mr. Redwood: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right. He is right in the first part of his question in saying that the Government have recently changed the law to ensure that it is an offence knowingly to mislead the competition authorities, but on his second point I do not think that the issue was whether it was or was not an offence under a particular section.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Department of Trade undertake to study the remarkable Channel 4 programme on Good Friday evening by John Plender—in particular, the position of Kleinwort Benson and John MacArthur—and consider the whole question of truthfulness at the highest level of commerce? Is lying now all right at that level?
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have nothing to add to the statement that he made to the House on the conduct of the case.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the very brevity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement last month on the report of the inspectors of the Department of Trade and Industry on the House of Fraser takeover encourages the likes of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) to make wild allegations? Would not it be far better to give the subject a thorough airing in a full debate in the House?
    Mr. Redwood: There will be another opportunity to discuss the matter when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives evidence to the Select Committee. Indeed, he has already done so. In addition, a statement was made which covered all the main issues that were relevant to my right hon. Friend and the conduct of his Department.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Radice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. McAvoy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Jack. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not herel Ms. Short. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Ingram. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Steinberg. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Livsey. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Maxton. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here.""] Mr. Alex Carlile.
    Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
    Hon. Members: Hooray!

    Information Technology
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage investment in information technology for the benefit of industry.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I fancy that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I are a bit surprised to be where we are.
    My Department is already encouraging the more widespread uptake and use of information technology in industry through programmes aimed at industry on the more effective use of information systems, technology transfer on open systems and advanced information technology and other related programmes. Investment by industry in information technology in hardware, software, systems and training would consequently follow as appropriate.
    Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but what steps do the Government propose to take to ensure that the full range of information technology equipment is available to small businesses in rural areas which are attractive to those who can run businesses on the basis of information technology?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman requires a full and considered reply to such a full and considered question. That being so, I propose to write to him.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the information technology industry has greatly expanded under the present Government, whereas it was virtually at a standstill under the Labour Administration? Does he agree also that a full statement about the industry ought to

    1423
    be made? Will he consider publishing at the earliest possible opportunity a statement on the way in which the information technology industry has expanded?
    Mr. Hogg: It is a subject which should be generally amplified and expanded upon, but as you, Mr. Speaker, will be aware, statements are not a matter for me. I therefore cannot give my hon. Friend a commitment in the terms that he seeks.

    Securities and Investments Board
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board; and what will be discussed.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to
    1424
    discuss a range of topics concerning the regulation of financial services as frequently as is necessary. No date has been fixed for the next such meeting.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister agree that now is an appropriate time to discuss with the SIB chairman whether the safeguards provided for small investors are even half-way adequate? It is clear that in this country it is all right to mislead or to reinterpret financial rules so long as one does it in terms of millions of pounds.
    Mr. Redwood: I do not believe that the hon. Lady's question draws the right inference, but she is right in saying that now is a good time to discuss with the chairman of the SIB matters relating to small investors and their protection. I hope to arrange a meeting with the chairman soon for that purpose.

Gun Components (Iraq)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on export controls in relation to Iraq.
On Tuesday 10 April, Customs officers at Teesport detained eight large steel tubes destined for Iraq, which they considered might require an export licence under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. Subsequently, Customs obtained related documents from firms believed to be involved. Experts from the Ministry of Defence later inspected the tubes and documents and advised that all the indications were that the tubes were components of a large-calibre armament, albeit of a scale outside anything previously experienced. The tubes were therefore seized, and Customs are making inquiries to see if any individuals or firms within the United Kingdom have committed customs offences.
The House will want to know that, in the summer of 1988, the DTI was approached by two of the companies now known to be connected with the manufacture of those components. In June 1988, Walter Somers asked if licences were needed for the export of metal tubes to Space Research Corporation in Belgium. In July, Sheffield Forgemasters asked if licences were needed for the export of tubes to Iraq for use in the polymerisation of polyethylene, and in August, Walter Somers made a further inquiry related to that contract.
On the information available at that time, it was decided that the export licences were not needed for those goods. Until a few days ago, my Department had no knowledge that the goods were designed to form part of a gun. If my Department had known that purpose, then it would of course have advised that licences were necessary, and they would not have been granted.
The Government recently became aware in general terms of an Iraqi project to develop a long-range gun based on designs developed by the late Dr. Gerald Bull. The goods that were seized at Teesport, and related documents, are consistent with what is known of Dr. Bull's design. Subsequent to the seizure, the Government have also received information about further aspects of the gun's development. The Government are entirely satisfied that the tubes form part of a gun and that the Customs' action was correct.
I would like to congratulate Customs on last week stopping the export of those parts of the gun. I understand that it will not be possible to build a complete, full-sized gun from parts that have been supplied from the United Kingdom. I hope that the House will understand that, while Customs' inquiries are continuing into possible criminal offences, it is not possible to go further into the details of this case.
Mr. Gordon Brown: I hope that the Secretary of State will begin by not just congratulating Customs and Excise staff but making a full apology to them. They have been subjected to a week of hostile briefings, critical leaks, off-the-record criticism, and an attempt by the Secretary of State's own Department to walk away from its proper responsibilities for what has gone wrong. Will the Secretary of State confirm that 44
1426
pipes have already been shipped to Iraq, and that they are part of a major armament being constructed by the Iraqi Government, that is, in his own words,
"of a scale outside anything previously experienced"?
Will he confirm that the military equipment may be used for hostile purposes, and so should never have been allowed to leave this country? Will he futher confirm that, since 1988, his Department has had access to the specifications and the drawings, could have had access to the contract governing the export order and at any time has had the powers to investigate it in full?
Will the Secretary of State explain why his Department took no action during the months when it had access to the specifications and the contract? Will he confirm that his Department took no action, even when it was known in June 1988—as he has confirmed today—that the Space Research Corporation of Dr. Gerald Bull—known not for its petrochemical expertise but for its military interests—was involved, but told the companies that no export licence even needed to be investigated? Will he confirm that he took no action even when Walter Somers told his Department that it had evidence of the aiming and positioning of the devices being ordered for Iraq?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, even if his Department had made a mistake and judged that a licence was needed for military equipment, section IL 1142 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1987 could have required a licence for pipes for petrochemical use, and that a meeting should have taken place on that matter between his Department, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his Department said nothing for an entire week, even after Customs and Excise seized the goods? Will he tell us who was briefing the media that it was merely a petrochemical order? Is it not the case that the Government have been deceived and duped on a grand scale, and that, but for the intervention of Customs and Excise staff, serious military consequences could have resulted? Will he confirm that it is not enough to admit that a mistake has been made, and that he should also accept responsibility for it? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, finally, that it is clear that, through slackness and complacency of almost criminal dimensions, the Government allowed through an order that could have made it possible for Iraq to acquire a weapon that he has himself described as
"of a scale outside anything previously experienced",
and whose use could affect regional and even world stability? Which Department will accept the responsibility?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now announce that he will set up an independent inquiry to establish the degree of culpability, and tell the House what the Government's commitment is to the arms embargo with Iraq? Finally, will he tell the House what immediate changes he has ordered in export controls so that this deeply embarrassing and sorry episode, which has made the British Government the object of ridicule, will never be repeated?
Mr. Ridley: To coin a phrase, that was going over the top on a scale outside anything previously experienced. I seriously counsel the hon. Member for Dumfermline, East (Mr. Brown) not to believe every word that he reads in the press. I can tell him straight that the Customs personnel have released no confidential information to the media. They have fully respected the confidentiality of material that they have obtained during their inquiries. There has

1427
been no statement until now, and, in the light of the fact that Customs and Excise is considering taking out prosecutions, I cannot answer detailed questions without prejudicing the rights of people who may be on trial. It would be wrong to pre-empt any such trial by what I should say in the House.
The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the gun has been exported, that it is a fait accompli. I emphasise that the gun cannot be in operation without all its parts, and it is a great success on behalf of this country to have prevented that. The hon. Gentleman should be paying tribute and congratulating the Customs and Excise on having frustrated this unpleasant export.
Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Walter Somers is a long established and highly respected firm in Halesowen in my constituency? My understanding is that it has always acted in the closest co-operation with his Department. I do not agree with the absurd charges made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). I am somewhat concerned to safeguard the good name of that excellent company and the jobs of its workers, yet when I sought reassurance from his Department and another Department, the replies were rather in the style of the television series, "Yes Minister". Surely this difficult matter should be cleared up as soon as possible; otherwise, many good men in the midlands will be deeply upset.
Mr. Ridley: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in that firm. However, it would be wrong to comment on the contacts between my Department and the firm, for the reason that I have given twice already—that I must say nothing that would prejudice the possibility of criminal proceedings at a later stage.
Sir David Steel: Should the Secretary of State not only give the Customs and Excise department thanks, but apologise for the press briefings that were given throughout the week saying that it had got it wrong? Could he enlighten the House by explaining exactly what is polymerisation of polyethylene —[Laughter.] The reason I ask that is that the wider issue is why the Government are allowing the export of high technology of any sort to a regime that engages in chemical warfare.
Mr. Ridley: No apologies are needed. I have answered the question about what the Customs and Excise department has said and done, and the right hon. Gentleman should accept that. However, he does not have to accept every word that he reads in the press. The polymerisation of polyethylene is, I understand, a chemical process that takes place in petrochemical activities under very high pressures. It is possible to export material for petrochemical works freely, and no export licence is required.
Mr. David Howell: Is not the alertness of Customs and Excise officials in interrupting this sinister shipment a matter for warm congratulation? My right hon. Friend has my full support in that. Does he accept that Iraq may have already used chemical long-range delivery weapons, and that it recently threatened to do so again against Israel? Will he reassure us that nothing will be done to appease the immensely dangerous ambitions of that ugly regime and its dictator?
Mr. Ridley: Nobody could condone the plans that it is thought Iraq has in that area. On the other hand, it is quite right strictly to control the export of armament materials. If we are aware that that is happening, we will, of course, refuse a licence.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State ask either the Secretary of State for Defence or the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) a factual question? On what date did the Ministry of Defence or its Procurement Executive first know that there was something that could be said to be in the nature of a weapon? When did the Ministry of Defence first know that there was a problem? On what date did that occur?
Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will have heard the question that the hon. Gentleman put. I think that it would be better for him to reply for himself.
Sir Hal Miller rose—
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know either, and it is not a matter for me.
Sir Hal Miller: Since, more than two years ago, I made an offer to his Department, to the Ministry of Defence and, I believe, to a third agency, on behalf of Walter Somers, to withdraw from the contract, to meet the contract and to enable it to be traced, or to carry on with the contract, and as I repeated that offer 12 months later, does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that there can be any question of prosecuting the company for any contravention of regulations or lack of good faith in the matter?
Mr. Ridley rose—
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State.
Mr. Ridley: If any company believes that it is exporting or has an order to export any piece of equipment which might have a military application, it is for it to apply for an export licence, and in that case it is considered. Concerning the question that my hon. Friend has asked, I think that it would be wrong for me to answer the last part, since that could prejudice any possible decision.
Mr. Alan Williams: In view of the comment of his hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), when those approaches were made by the firm, did the right hon. Gentleman's Department make any approaches to the Ministry of Defence? If so, on what date did they make those approaches? If they failed to do so, why on earth did they so fail?
Mr. Ridley: As I said, I cannot go into those matters at this stage.
Mr. Michael Jopling: While I endorse my right hon. Friend's comments about the efficiency of the Customs in this case, could he say whether there is any track record by the Space Research Corporation of equipment which did not have a military use?
Mr. Ridley: Yes, sir. Space Research Corporation was involved in many types of project, many of a civil nature.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the Secretary of State accept that at some time the House will have to know whether or not the Defence Export Services Organisation or International Military Services, which are both 100 per cent. controlled by the British Ministry of Defence, were ever involved or approached regarding those contracts? Does he appreciate that this country is the world's second largest arms supplier? That being so and being common knowledge, it is bound to be the case that every riff-raff country around the world that is looking for weapons of destruction—sometimes to use against its own people—will come knocking at British doors. Therefore, extra vigilance has to be maintained, and that has clearly been lacking.
Mr. Ridley: That is not quite right. Extra vigilance has been exercised in the Customs operation for some time, and it has been a great success, not long after a previous success was achieved with the nuclear trigger devices, which the House will remember. I do not know why the House is accusing the authorities of not succeeding in that respect. On both occasions, success has been achieved.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the co-ordination standards between Customs and Excise and his Department? Secondly, while I have no truck whatsoever with the horrendous regime in Iraq, what evidence does he have in his Department from those engaged in oil refinery design that the material and the tubes in question are not for the application intended? Thirdly, what information has he, metallurgically, to show that the tubes would be able to sustain the firing of a shell or a missile?
Mr. Ridley: On my hon. Friend's first point, yes, I am satisfied that contact between my Department and the Customs and Excise is of a high order. Secondly, as I said in my statement, from examination of the parts which have been seized at Teesport, Ministry of Defence experts have come to the firm belief and strong conclusion that those are parts of a gun. They do not believe that they were intended for any other purpose.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Secretary of State appeared to be implying that there is guilt on the part of some or all of the companies involved. If, after appropriate investigation, he finds that they are completely innocent and that the fault lies with public Departments, will he return to the House to make that clear?
What happens if other countries that may be within the targeting arrangements of this odious regime decide that they should have enormous guns? Will it be all right for Sheffield Forgemasters to go on making these tubes?
Mr. Ridley: On the first point, I do not believe that "guilt" is the right word. That would be prejudicing any trial that might take place. It is correct to allow Customs to consider whether it wants to take proceedings, and all these points would come out in any proceedings that might be taken. After the proceedings have concluded, it will be right for the House to find out the further details that it may wish to know, but I cannot prejudge Customs' decision on whether to take proceedings.
On the second point, any firm that receives an inquiry or order to make parts that it believes could be part of an offensive weapon must apply for an export licence. If it is
1430
confirmed that it is a gun of this type, that licence will not be granted. We can be quite certain that nothing will come from this country.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that we have an important debate to follow.
Mr. Skinner: This is important.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner: This man has been protected.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Sit down, please. We have a very important debate today and a ten-minute rule Bill. I shall allow three more questions from each side.[Interruption.]
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Since my right hon. Friend is also responsible for the Export Credits Guarantee Department, will he tell us whether this contract was underwritten by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and what are the implications of any such underwriting for the present situation in which supply has been discontinued by order of Customs?
Mr. Ridley: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question without notice. I shall give him a full answer, but I understand that the company was paid when the goods left its works.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the bloodstained criminal nature of the regime in Iraq, which started the Gulf war and used chemical weapons, is the Secretary of State aware that far more will have to be done by Ministers to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller)? While Customs officers are certain to be congratulated, Ministers are not. We shall certainly want a further statement, including one from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. Ridley: I do not think that there is anything that I can add in answer to that.
Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Sheffield Forgemasters acted in good faith throughout this affair? Was not it a wholly owned subsidiary of British Steel, which was wholly owned by the Department of Trade and Industry when the order was placed?
Mr. Ridley: Those facts could be verified, but I cannot myself verify them. It does not seem to be relevant to the fact that, on this occasion, the export of a piece of an armament that could have been of grave disadvantage was successfully apprehended and prevented from being used.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Why has it taken the Secretary of State's Department a full week to respond to information that was given to the country by Customs and Excise? In an earlier statement, the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that he had to have information before he could act. Will he confirm or deny that that information came from the Israeli secret service?
Mr. Ridley: The goods were distrained by Customs officers, who then waited for the Ministry of Defence to inspect and verify the purpose of the goods. There was no role for my Department to play during that period, because the goods had been distrained. There was no

1431
question of the goods being exported so long as they remained with Customs officers. If the MOD experts had reached a different conclusion, the goods would and could have been exported. The fact that the goods were prevented from being exported is a great success. I cannot of course answer the hon. Gentleman's second point, and I do not believe that he expected me to do so.
Mr. Richard Page: Would my right hon. Friend please remind the Opposition, in the middle of their hysteria, that Iraq has just finished a long and bloody war in which hundreds and thousands of its people were killed, that peace has not yet been signed, borders have not yet been agreed and prisoners have not yet been exchanged? Should we be surprised that a country whose next-door neighbour is larger and gripped by destabilising fundamentalism should use every form of extreme subterfuge to try to bypass an arms embargo?
As that is the case in this incident, and as we are not the totalitarian regime that the Opposition would have us become, but a free market economy, is it not understandable that it will take time to pick up such exotic undertakings in which state Governments try deliberately to bamboozle other nations? Therefore, should not companies in Britain that have acted in good faith be free from any form of prosecution and the Customs department be congratulated on its good work in picking up this particular incident?
Mr. David Winnick: How much was the hon. Gentleman paid?
Mr. Ridley: There is a lot in what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his remarks with which I agree. However, it is absolutely essential that we recognise that this has been a successful operation which has prevented the export of goods which could have had an immense potential for damage.
Mr. Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Secretary of State accept congratulations on behalf of the Customs and Excise for standing up to his Department's efforts to undermine the Customs and Excise department's activities in that case? Will he confirm that the British Overseas Trade Board's export intelligence promoted the project in consultation with the British embassy in Baghdad? Will he confirm that it has Export Credits Guarantee Department cover? Will he also confirm that executives at Sheffield Foregemasters met representatives of the Belgian company, which is not, as the Secretary of State tried to claim, noted for its connection with peaceful activities?
At the end of this sorry affair, does not the Secretary of State think that it has something to do with ministerial responsibility? Have not his Department and his office lamentably failed over years to seek out the military aspects of the contract? If the Secretary of State was a decent, honourable Minister obeying the usual rules, would not he resign?
Mr. Ridley: I most strongly rebut any suggestion that the DTI has not co-operated fully with the Ministry of Defence and the Customs. They worked together throughout the period to identify the equipment. A lot of what the hon. Gentleman said in the middle of his remarks was not something that I can comment on with the possibility of a case pending—[HON. MEMBERS: "What case?") I said "the possibility of a case". With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I will pass on to my noble Friend, Lord Caithness, who is responsible for the Customs, the congratulations that the hon. Gentleman offered.
Mr. John Marshall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an action that has helped peace in the middle east and which will be widely welcomed by everyone concerned about the stability of that troubled part of the world? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contract underlines the danger of trading with Iraq? May we have an assurance that all future contracts will be looked at with particular vigilance by my right hon. Friend's Department?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with what he has said. I confirm that we will continue our high state of vigilance in deciding whether export licences should be granted. I can now also tell my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that no ECGD cover was available for the contract.
Mr. George Galloway: Does the Secretary of State accept that, even by his own standards, this has been a truly extraordinary performance at the Dispatch Box this afternoon? Even if it means leaning across to his colleague from the Foreign Office, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the reason that 44 of those pipes are now in Iraq and that only the last batch was stopped is that the information was given to the Government by Mossad, the Israeli secret service, immediately before the goods were exported—the same Mossad that fired five bullets into the back of the head of Dr. Bull in Belgium some weeks before? Will the Secretary of State and the Government support Senator Dole's plea in the middle east last week that all countries of the middle east with a capacity of weapons for mass destruction, including Israel with its nuclear weapons, should abandon such weapons and bring about the stability that the area needs?
Mr. Ridley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully estimates the gravity of this incident. Many Opposition Members try to make party politics out of a great success story in getting this export stopped so that the gun cannot be put together. Of course I shall not follow the James Bond musings at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order in a moment, after the Standing Order No. 20 application.

UDR Soldiers (Murder)
4.1 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the massacre by the IRA of four Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers in Downpatrick on 9 April."
During the recess, the IRA carried out a bloody massacre of four young Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers in Downpatrick on 9 April. Those young soldiers were Private Michael Adams, aged 23, who had served in the regiment for seven months and was formerly with the Royal Engineers; Lance-corporal John Bradley, aged 25, who had four years of service in the UDR and was formerly with the Royal Highlanders; Private Steven Smart, aged 23, who had served with the regiment for a period and was also with the Royal Artillery; and Private John Burch, aged 28, who joined the regiment over one year ago.
I understand from personal knowledge that three of the four bodies were so shattered that the loved ones were not able to open the coffins and see the remains. The vast crater, like a lake, that was left in the road speaks volumes about the strength of the explosives that were used to carry out those atrocious, cold-blooded murders. We should add to that the circumstances of the kith and kin—one already a mother and carrying yet another child who will never see his father; one a fiancée for whom this is a double sorrow, for her father was murdered by the IRA in the Kingsmill massacre; another a mother of two; and another a young bride-to-be, looking forward to her marriage day.
1434
A vehicle used in the atrocity was hijacked by the IRA on the border, and no doubt the murderers are now across the border, in the very safe haven of the Irish Republic.
Those murders took place against the background of a vicious political attack on the Ulster Defence Regiment. Mr. Haughey has said that the regiment must go; Mr. Collins has said that there is no place for the regiment in the Ulster security effort; and in a recent programme, the BBC equated the Ulster Defence Regiment with the IRA and said that it was part of the problem.
One final word—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his three minutes.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I deplore the fact that the Secretary of State did not come to the House today to make a statement so that the representatives of Northern Ireland could discuss the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the murder of four UDR soldiers by the IRA last week."
As the hon. Gentleman knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have listened with deep concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said about this matter. As he also knows, the decision that I have to take is whether to give that matter precedence over the business set down for today or for tomorrow. In this case, I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
4.7 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take Mr. Heller first.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: During his statement, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said several times that he could not answer the points raised by hon. Members because there could be, there might be or there may possibly be a case pending before the courts. Is that a new doctrine in the House? I have always understood that, when a case was before a court, we did not have the opportunity or the right to question Ministers on that matter, because the issue was before a court and comments here could prejudice that case.
I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I have never before heard a Minister make a statement and say, "I cannot answer the hon. Member"—who had raised a perfectly legitimate question that the Minister should answer—"because there could be, there might be or there may possibly be a case before the courts." Is that a new doctrine, Mr. Speaker? Is that allowed in the House? Is it not time that Ministers should be told that, when there is not a case before the courts, hon. Members who ask questions have a right to be given answers to those questions?
Mr. Speaker: In the first place, I am in no way responsible for answers that are given. Secondly, on the question about doctrine, it is not a doctrine upon which I can make a judgment. I understood that it was the judgment of the Secretary of State himself that, if he was to answer certain questions, that might be prejudicial. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Charles Wardle: During the recent question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Trade and Industry from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), like several of my hon. Friends, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) ask from a sedentary position what my hon. Friend was being paid for his question. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? If you did, do you agree that the hon. Member for Walsall, North should apologise to the House and withdraw what he said?
Mr. Speaker: It was a highly charged Question Time. I did not hear—[Interruption.] Order. There was a good deal of noise and I did not hear everthing that was said from a sedentary position.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to reflect on two points that arise from the statement made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. First, while you are right in saying that you have no responsibility for the content of the answers given by the Secretary of State, if the phrase "I have nothing to add" goes unchallenged, through you and the Table Office, it becomes a blocking motion whereby further written questions may not be tabled.
The second and shorter point that I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, is that only five hon. Members were still standing at the end of the statement and many of us were also seeking to rise at the end of the statement about the murder of the Observer journalist when, again, we were
1436
not called. Like myself, other hon. Members may wish to raise constituency interests and perhaps you could bear that in mind the next time—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments is a matter of speculation, because no such question has been tabled. On the second part, I remind him and the whole House that it would be easy for the Chair to allow questions on statements to run out. It would be equally unfair to hon. Members who wish to participate in subsequent debates. I have mentioned today—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: This one is more important.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Well, it is an important debate, in which there is a great interest. I have to make a judgment on these things.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members who are now rising do not wish to raise points with me that they might have put to the Secretary of State had they been called.
Mr Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because of the great care, consideration and surveillance of the Department of Trade and Industry, one of my constituent companies took months to obtain a licence to export non-military goods—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That can be dealt with on another occasion. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Dickens: My constituent company would expect me to be called.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No. It might have expected that, but many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the next debate.
Mr. Dickens: There were only three hon. Members left standing on each side.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very selfish for the hon. Member to believe that he should be called in preference to his colleagues.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether there is a special Standing Order which has escaped my attention in respect of the protection of Ministers when they are under fire. It is becoming increasingly evident to many of us on this side that there must be an order which you observe which is a kind of "protect Nicholas Ridley society". In view' of the last time on the Fayeds and again today—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a disreputable charge for the hon. Member to make. He would be absolutely the first to come to me if he was cut out of a subsequent debate.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are constantly exhorted at Question Time to get through as many questions as possible. Today you managed to get through no less than 43 questions. Unfortunately, however, you did so only because 30 Labour Members who had important questions on the Order Paper did not turn up to ask their questions. Those of us who are interested in Trade and Industry questions seek your protection to allow us to raise important

1437
matters. I wonder whether consideration could be given in such circumstances to your looking through the long end of a telescope to see hon. Members who are not here in order that questions that are on the Order Paper are asked and brought before the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was called twice, so I do not think that he has any crib.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you confirm that when a senior member of the Cabinet asks to make a statement in the House he makes it not only on behalf of his Department but of the Government as a whole? Might not it have been better to use other procedures? Four Departments wanted the matter questioned—the Treasury for Customs and Excise, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry. In view of the suspicion that the Ministry of Defence has displayed a Nelson eye for some time on the Iraqi orders, is not it unacceptable, as the Defence Secretary was present and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was sitting by his side, that when I simply asked for the date when the Department first knew about the matter—a simple, artless, factual question—I did not receive an answer? One should not be told that it is a matter for the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member should table a question to the Secretary of State for Defence on such matters.
Mr. Richard Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member on the statement, but I will call him again if it is a point of order that I can answer.
Mr. Page: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), for which I thank him, and as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has not had the courtesy to withdraw his remark, may I make it clear to the House that I am paid by no Government and no Government agency?
Mr. Tony Banks: I rise on a point of order to try to establish better in my mind the criteria that you, Mr. Speaker, adopt when deciding how long ministerial statements will be allowed to run. We have just returned from a fairly generous Easter recess—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Some of you."]—Some of us have. During that time, the matter which was the subject of the previous statement was running as a major item on all the news bulletins and was on the front pages of all the newspapers. There was—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we have had enough of that.
Mr. Banks: I am just trying to ask you, Mr. Speaker, how you decide how long a statement will run.
Mr. Speaker: I will tell the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Banks: That is all I asked.
Mr. Speaker: That is very offensive—
Mr. Banks: You have been offensive to me, Sir.
Mr. Speaker:—but I will tell the hon. Gentleman. The Chair has an obligation to balance the time available in the House and the hon. Gentleman has frequently been to see me to express his distress at not being called in debate.
Mr. Banks: No, I have not.
Mr. Speaker: Then I hope he never will.
Mr. Banks: There would not be much point.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to balance these matters. There is great pressure to take part in the coming debate. As a result of these points of order, I regret that all the hon. Members who wish to participate are unlikely to be called.
Mr. James Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply disturbed at the failure of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement this afternoon about the slaughter of the four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment outside Downpatrick during the recess. The impression is gaining ground among people in Northern Ireland that IRA murders are so commonplace that the Government do not feel that they have to make a statement, which would give Members from Northern Ireland an opportunity to put questions about the security situation in the Province. As there is this crisis of confidence, and the Ulster Defence Regiment is under attack not only from the IRA, but by its propagandists, surely the Government should come to the House to make a statement about those murders and allow Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland to question them.
Mr. Speaker: That will have been heard by the Leader of the House, but whether statements are made is not a matter for me.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

FISHING VESSELS
That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 685) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

VALUE ADDED TAX
That the Value-Added Tax (Transport) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 752) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dorell.]
Question agreed to.

National Lottery
4.17 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a national lottery to be held for the benefit of the arts, sport and the environment in the United Kingdom.
I wish to place on record my thanks for the help and support I have received in seeking to promote a national lottery from Europrint, for whom I was previously a consultant, from Lord Birkett, and particularly from the international conductor, Dennis Vaughan, without whose dedication and hard work, public support for a lottery would not be at its current high level.
It will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that not all forms of new taxes are universally popular, and the words of Thomas Jefferson in 1826 are as accurate now as they were then:
"Lotteries are the perfect tax, paid only by the willing."
Lotteries have existed for centuries. The Romans participated in them as a form of entertainment, and by the early 1700s, European Governments had begun to recognise the revenue potential of lotteries and started to license their operation. Revenues were used to finance the construction of roads, schools and churches. Unfortunately, by the mid-1800s, even Government-controlled lotteries were falling prey to abuses and fraud, and lotteries fell into disrepute. The advent of computer technology and improved communications has changed all that and made safe, honest lotteries once more a practical proposition.
Today, 116 countries throughout the world have lotteries. They have been used to finance the building of Sydney opera house, to fund the Olympic games in Moscow and Mexico and to build the great American universities of Yale and Harvard. Although Britain has benefited in the past from national lotteries—the British museum was built using funds from them, for instance —Britain and Albania are now the only two countries in Europe that do not have a national lottery.
Dennis Vaughan said in a recent article:
"Everyone agrees about the necessity of funding for health, education, pollution, children, old age and the like, so they should come out of common taxation. There will never be agreement about the various merits of arts, sport and the visual aspects of the environment, so the only fair way is to pay for them by voluntary taxation … a lottery."
I share that view and I believe that the arts, sport and the environment deserve increased resources because they contribute significantly to the quality of life.
Many of the problems that we face underline the need for greater provision. Claudio Abbado, the great conductor, pointed out that, whenever youngsters participate actively in classical music, there is no drug problem; yet young people who live in the west and east of England have to rely on visits from London orchestras to be able to listen to first-class musicians, and the Welsh national opera has no home.
Those who practise sport regularly find that it is the best antidote to misery, despair and indolence, which are often cited as causes of the tendency to drug taking. Participation in sport also helps people to rid themselves of untold frustrations which often lead to violence.
There is an urgent need for extra sports facilities for our young people. A letter that I have received from the Amateur Swimming Federation of Great Britain makes the point that swimming and sport in general in our
1440
country are being left behind their counterparts in the countries with which we compete. Facilities here are poor compared with those in other west European countries. A similar story can be told about most other sports. Much of the time freely given by thousands of volunteers to help young people participate in sport is spent in fund raising. The tremendous support for the idea of a national lottery from environmental groups underlines the necessity for a major new injection of funds into many areas of their work.
We have the need for extra resources; we have the desire to take part in a national lottery with a prize of £1 million or more. In a recent opinion poll, 44 per cent. of people said that they would buy a ticket each week, 71 per cent. said that they were fairly likely to buy a ticket and only 6 per cent. said that they were certain not to buy one.
I referred earlier to a new injection of funding. I have no doubt that the introduction of a British national lottery will result in a significant increase in resources for sports, the arts and the environment. Projected sales of lottery tickets, arrived at by taking the per capita spend on lotteries in EC countries, produces a figure of £3·1 billion. If 45 per cent. of the proceeds are returned in prize money and another 20 per cent. allocated to expenses, we are left with 35 per cent. to distribute to the various causes. That would allow £1 billion more to be spent on sports, the arts and the environment each year.
That sum could fully fund a symphony orchestra in each regional centre, retain famous works of art in this country and increase support for young talent throughout Great Britain. It could also provide a new national stadium built to the highest Olympic standards, a fully funded research centre for sports medicine and scholarships for aspiring young athletes, in addition to extra facilities nationwide. It could also improve the environment by helping the conservation of land and waterways and the preservation of wildlife.
All this could be done with just one year's revenue from a British national lottery, and it would be extra money. It is my intention that the amount raised for sport, the arts and the environment should be in addition to current levels of Government spending, not a substitute for them.
It is clear that many people in Britain want to buy lottery tickets. Many are already doing so, not least for the West German lottery. It is unfortunate that the money that they are spending is being used to improve German roads, hospitals and facilities, whereas it should be used to benefit people in Great Britain. Unless we act, we shall continue to ensure that the money that we lose ends up in Cologne, Bonn or Hamburg instead of Colchester, Birmingham or Hyndburn.
To the extent that many people are already buying tickets, many of the arguments against a British national lottery are now irrelevant. In the past, fears have been expressed that a national lottery could damage charity and sports club lotteries and the football pools, and could encourage compulsive gambling. I believe that such fears are groundless. Evidence collected in the United States shows that, contrary to charities' first expectations, their ticket sales actually increased.
Ireland satisfied the concerns of the charity lotteries by including a clause in its legislation to compensate them for any loss of income incurred as a result of the introduction of a national lottery. In over two years since the launch of the lottery, no claim has been received. In an interdepartmental working party report on lotteries in

1441
1975, the pools companies stated that a vigorous pools industry and large lotteries were compatible. I believe that a national lottery based on a "rub-off" ticket would have little effect on the pools.
I reject, too, the fears about compulsive gambling, which flourishes in enclosed environments, such as casinos, slot machine arcades and betting shops where the risks are high, the action fast, the results determined quickly and where gamblers can use their perceived skill to beat the system. Lotteries have none of those elements, so they do not lead to compulsive gambling.
I welcome the support that the Bill has received from hon. Members of all parties. I have described evidence of the need for a lottery, of support for a lottery and of the desire of the majority of people to take part in a lottery. We in this House should be the last people to oppose a lottery. We have to enter a lottery every day to ask a question, and every year to introduce a private Member's Bill. If we are committed to extending consumer freedom and promoting voluntary action, we should give this Bill our full support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Sir Cyril Smith, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Alastair Burt, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. David Evennett and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

NATIONAL LOTTERY
Mr. Ken Hargreaves accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a national lottery to be held for the benefit of the arts, sport and the environment in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 May and to be printed. [Bill 124.]
Orders of the Day

  Courts and Legal Services Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the somewhat late start to this debate and the pressure to speak, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to make brief speeches, please, so that all who wish to participate may do so.
  4.27 pm
  The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In the opinion of the Government, going to law in civil cases is all too often unduly complex. All too often it is needlessly inconvenient, takes too long, and can be disproportionately expensive. Therefore, part I of the Bill is intended to make the public's access to justice simpler, quicker and more convenient. It is a shame that the Bill upsets the Labour party, whose motion declines a Second Reading to the Bill.
  The objective of part II of the Bill is the development of legal services for the public, in particular in advocacy, litigation, conveyancing and probate. It opens the door to new ways or better ways of providing these, while maintaining always the proper and efficient administration of justice. It, therefore, seeks to stimulate competition and foster high standards of professional service to the public. Again, it is a shame that those objectives seem to find insufficient favour with the Labour party. The Bill is apparently beyond amendment. Labour Members would refuse it a Second Reading. I must, therefore, take a little time to explain what they suggest the House should vote against.
  I will begin by recalling the civil justice review. In 1985 the review body was established by a Conservative Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend Lord Hailsham, who charged it to improve the machinery of civil justice in England and Wales and in particular to reduce delay, cost and complexity.
  The review body reported in 1988 with recommendations that were widely applauded at the time. Its report was only the second in this area to propose major changes since 1869, when the creation of the Supreme Court of Judicature was proposed, so the proposals were extremely important. Most of the review's recommendations requiring primary legislation are given effect in part I of the Bill. The main thrust of part I is to allow all civil cases to be dealt with at the appropriate level and no higher.
  The key conclusion of the review was that relatively few of the cases now being handled in the High Court need to be handled there because they are not of sufficient weight or complexity to justify that. Therefore, the major change made possible in part I is the reserving of the High Court for judicial review cases, for other specialist cases, and for general cases of unusual substance, importance or difficulty. That follows the key recommendation of the civil justice review. The result will be to speed up the handling of cases remaining in the High Court, and to make the cheaper, speedier, and more convenient

  1443
  procedures and service provided by the county courts available now for those cases which are smaller and less complex.
  The road leading to that reform will have to be travelled by stages. The county courts do not as yet have all the procedures or the resources that the increased work load will require. The Lord Chancellor has said that the transfers of work will not be made until the proper resources are available in the county courts to deal with them. However, a large amount of the necessary work is already under way—for example, the preparation of new procedures for the handling of payments following a court judgment, known as suitors' cash. From this month most payments will pass directly from debtor to creditor without having to be handled by the court. That should make the equivalent of some 300 posts in the court service available for other work. The work already under way includes the centralised issuing, from Northampton, of county court summonses at the suit of major creditors. The saving there should be the equivalent of another 50 full-time posts by late this year.
  The work already under way also includes the establishment, on a much greater scale than presently, of county courts where long trials can receive a continuous hearing, and avoid that bane of the county court practitioner, to say nothing of the judiciary and the parties concerned, of having one adjournment after another. Already there are nearly 50 such continuous trial centres, and it is hoped that within two years most trials of any significant length will be dealt with in those centres.
  As for resources, in any event there is need already for an increase, and so this year extra funds are available which should provide for the court service as a whole an increase of around 350 staff over and above those already in post. Changes to be effected may require up to 100 further posts themselves, so I emphasise that the Government intend first to recruit the staff that the changes will require. The Opposition's motion to convey the idea that the Government are neglecting to provide the resources that the reforms in the Bill will demand therefore cannot be justified. To rely on that notion as a reason for inviting the House to vote against the Bill, with all the benefits that it will achieve for the public in terms of cost-effectiveness, competition and convenience in the provision of legal services, is an excuse that falls some way short of being persuasive.
  We must travel the reforming road in stages. The changes in the jurisdiction of the county courts, and in the system of allocating cases to them, will be achieved not all at once but by a series of orders to be made by the Lord Chancellor. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor envisages that the first order would require that all but the most substantial of personal injury cases would have to begin in a county court, and all general actions below a financial limit to be set by the order and proceeding to trial would have to be heard in a county court, unless they were exceptionally complex or important. It is intended that the Lord Chancellor's first such order will not take effect before January 1991. Full consultation about it is about to begin and it will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Before leaving part I of the Bill, I should mention, at the other end of the scale, the small claims procedure. The House may recall that the civil justice review examined that procedure and found that it had proved its worth. Cases are automatically dealt with as small claims if their
  1444
  value is £500 or less. The Government intend that the limit should be increased to £1,000 by rules of court, to implement one of the review's recommendations. Additionally, part I of the Bill makes new arrangements for representations by lay persons, both for litigants in small claims and for those in debt cases and housing cases proceeding in the county court. Litigants can be represented, but not necessarily by a lawyer.
  That part of the Bill certainly justifies the Government's claim that it will make public access to justice simpler, quicker and more convenient. It will also make it more cost-effective. That will be in the interests of everyone—not least the legally-aided litigant. Because legal aid has been the subject very recently of substantial legislative reform, and as work arising from that reform is already proceeding separately, the Bill rightly does not contain a major element dealing with legal aid. However, legal aid is, of course, central to the Government's overall aims because it is an essential service for people who cannot themselves pay, whether in part or in full, for access to legal advice and legal representation.
  It is estimated that 259,000 civil legal aid certificates will be issued in 1989–90, compared with 190,000 certificates 10 years ago. In November, the Lord Chancellor introduced a package of improvements to eligibility arrangements which will confer real benefits on three important classes of people—children, pensioners living off their savings, and those involved in personal injury cases. That change brings 5 million children into the scope of legal aid. Already under way is a full review of the financial conditions for legal aid across the board, both civil and criminal. The Lord Chancellor has given assurances in another place that people currently eligible for legal aid will not lose when the Bill comes into force.
  When so much is already in train under the Legal Aid Act 1988 and by way of the review for the development of legal aid services, it is idle to criticise the Bill for not dealing additionally to the large extent that it already does with matters relating primarily to legal aid. To vote against the Bill on that ground does not seem awfully respectable.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Does the Attorney-General accept that 15 million fewer people are eligible for legal aid this year compared with 1979? Does he acknowledge that, no matter that he is changing the structure of the court system and transferring cases from the High Court to the county court, if people are unable to bring their cases before the court because they fail legal aid eligibility criteria there is no point in changing the structure?
  The Attorney-General: As to eligibility, the Lord Chancellor has said that by one calculation it does appear that a smaller percentage of people—56 per cent. today rather than 70 per cent. a few years ago—may be eligible for legal aid. However, it is difficult to be satisfied as to the right basis for making that calculation. One calculation is based on the family expenditure survey, which adopts a different definition of a household from that adopted for the purpose of eligibility for the legal aid scheme. I suggest that it is more important to concentrate on identifying which particular types of litigation cost and candidates for legal aid really need to be assisted from public funds, in order to provide access to the courts for different, specific purposes. That is one of the most important functions of the review now being undertaken.

  1445
  Part II of the Bill particularly concerns the provision of legal services. Under our statute and common law in England and Wales, the authority or right to provide legal services for reward is generally restricted to those who hold professional qualifications. In general, our courts have no investigative powers of their own and therefore rely, perhaps to a unique extent, on the quality of the legal profession that serves both courts and public.
  Obviously the qualities of integrity and fearlessness are pre-eminent, but it is also highly important to ensure that the profession remains responsive and sensitive to the needs of people who require the services of lawyers. It must never give the appearance of being remote.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is not the cab rank principle extremely important in this connection, ensuring that cases are taken by counsel and by solicitors?
  The Attorney-General: I entirely agree, and I shall say more about that later.
  In recent years the legal profession has undergone and absorbed many great changes, a number of which it has instituted or introduced itself. Solicitors and barristers can now advertise their practices—and, what is more, their charges—and they do so. The Bar allows its members to accept instructions in certain kinds of work from professionals who are not solicitors; a new profession of licensed conveyancers has been created, and solicitors now charge highly competitive prices for conveyancing work. Training within each branch of the profession has been completely transformed.
  No less important than those changes, however, is the need to help the evolution to continue by ensuring that there are no unnecessary restrictions to hinder the public in their attempts to obtain legal services. If competition, for example, were unnecessarily restrictive, so that new or better ways of providing legal services—or a wider choice of people to provide them—became needlessly shut out, that would be a good example of what I mean. The Government believe that the general test should be whether a restriction is appropriate to maintain the proper and efficient administration of justice—if it is not, it should go.
  For example, the Government understand very well the need to ensure that legal services continue to be of high quality if the public are to be protected. Those who provide them must therefore be properly qualified and properly accountable—accountable to the client, to their professional body and to the courts.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I agree very much with what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying about the quality of the service provided, particularly by barristers, and by solicitors representing clients in the higher courts. Can he not say, even at this late stage, that the Goverment will introduce a provision to allow clients to claim against their barrister if he is negligent—if he does not turn up in court, for instance, or does not do his homework? Surely, if we are to guarantee quality and give certain people a monopoly to represent clients in court, we should allow those clients to obtain legal redress if their representatives are negligent.
  The Attorney-General: The immunity from actions for negligence which has long been accorded to barristers by
  1446
  common law, and which the Bill extends to all advocates, is very closely confined. It deals only with the conduct of a case, principally in court. It was confirmed in two House of Lords judgments—Rondel v. Worsley 1967, and another in the following decade. The Bill preserves that narrowly confined immunity in the public interest. It is important, for example, that an action for negligence based on the way in which an advocate conducts a case "on his feet" in court does not lead to a retrying of the whole issue. Without the immunity, that would be almost inevitable and very much against the public interest. In many instances, however, a breach of duty by advocates —including barristers, of course—at present gives rise to a liability in relation to negligence, and that will continue.
  Sir Anthony Grant: As I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will accept, immunity at the Bar is not the only immunity. Witnesses giving evidence in the box are immune from action—as, most notably, are hon. Members in the House.
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes an apt and accurate point.
  The Government propose that in future rights of audience before a particular court should depend solely on whether advocates can demonstrate that they have received the appropriate education and training, and are bound by the appropriate codes of conduct. The Government consider that that fitness to practise is best established by professional bodies and other organisations whose members provide legal services, and that it is for such bodies to satisfy the courts and the public that their members can meet the high standards of competence and conduct required for the exercise of rights of audience.
  Those requirements are at the heart of the Government's intentions, and are secured by the statutory objective and the general principle for which clause 15 expressly provides. The statutory objective is the development of legal services in England and Wales through provision for new or better ways of providing those services and a wider choice of people providing them, along with the constant maintaining of proper and efficient administration of justice. The general principle is that the question whether a person should be granted a right of audience in relation to any court or proceedings, or should be granted a right to conduct litigation, should be determined only by reference to certain specific factors.
  First, it should be established whether that person is qualified in accordance with the educational and training requirements appropriate to that court or those proceedings. Secondly, it should be established whether he is a member of a professional or other body that has rules of conduct governing the conduct of its members, has an effective mechanism for enforcing those rules and is likely to enforce them. The rules—in relation to the particular court or proceedings—must be appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice. It will not be enough if they are simply appropriate to preserving the interests of the body concerned.
  In relation to rights of audience in any of the superior courts, a fourth factor was added by amendment in another place. That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). The fourth factor is the question whether a professional body's rules of conduct include provisions embodying what is loosely called the cab rank

  1447
  principle, subject to reasonable exceptions. The amendment—now contained in clause 15(3)(d)—excluded from its ambit the rights of audience in the superior courts that solicitors currently enjoy.
  The question in another place was whether that principle needed to be spelt out in the Bill. I can now tell the House that the Government have decided to accept it, and to include it in clause 15. It may be generally described as the principle of non-discrimination by a practitioner between prospective clients in any area of law in which he practises as an advocate. Provision will, however, be needed to ensure that employed advocates may be allowed, by the operation of the machinery set up by the Bill, to act only for their employers in whatever court or proceedings in which they may have a right of audience.
  The Government support that principle, considering it to be in the general interests of prospective clients and the administration of justice. For that reason, having consulted the Law Society and the Bar Council, they propose that clause 15 should provide for a wider application of it than is achieved by subsection (3) (d). They propose that it should apply to all rights of audience granted by a professional body, in whatever court or proceedings.
  The Government will introduce their own amendment to give effect to that policy in due course. What is more —consistent with the principle of non-discrimination—they will introduce amendments to apply to the Bar the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to cover discrimination in professional relationships, both at the Bar and between barristers and those instructing them.
  Advocacy, litigation, conveyancing and probate services are the main services covered by the relevant part of the Bill.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Can the Attorney-General confirm that the principle of non-discrimination will ensure that there is no discrimination against those potential clients who are in receipt of legal aid?
  The Attorney-General: It would not be right for me to anticipate the formulation of the amendment that the Government will introduce to give effect to the principle of non-discrimination. When it is introduced, there will be ample opportunity for the Standing Committee to discuss it and I trust that the Committee will be graced by the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
  The four categories—advocacy, litigation, conveyancing and probate—are very different in character, their only common feature being that under our law they can be undertaken for reward only by a professional with specific qualifications. Part II of the Bill provides three separate ways to permit development in those areas. The first covers advocacy and the conduct of litigation, which are the two categories of work upon which the administration of justice by the courts crucially relies. That first way employs a process by which an appropriate body may be authorised to grant to its members the right to undertake advocacy and litigation rights. That process is developed from the present statutory and common law arrangements, in which the judiciary is involved, whereby such rights are granted.
  Although the Bill provides the mechanism as well as the impetus for change, it also preserves the position of solicitors and barristers by providing that the Law Society
  1448
  and the Bar Council shall be deemed to have granted to solicitors and barristers the rights that they respectively hold at present. They will be deemed to have been authorised to do so consistently with the requirements of the Bill by virtue of their existing regulations and rules.
  If a new body were to seek authorisation to enter that area or if the Law Society or the Bar Council wished to grant an extension or alteration of existing rights to their members, there would be a need under the new arrangements to secure the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges in accordance with the new procedure. The road which may lead to such approval is mapped out in schedule 4. It leads first to the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct. That committee will be established under clause 17, and it must first consider the matter. There will be a lay majority on the committee, to illustrate the importance of the public's interest. A Law Lord or a judge of the Supreme Court will be in the chair. The committee will have the general duty of assisting in the maintenance and development of standards in the education, training and conduct of those offering legal services.
  The second stage will be for the Lord Chancellor to consider, with the advice of the committee and of the Director General of Fair Trading, whether in connection with the proposals the members of the applicant body will be suitably qualified and whether they will be subject to appropriate codes of conduct, which will be enforced.
  The third stage will be for the Lord Chancellor to inform the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court either that he proposes to give his approval to the application or alteration, or alternatively why he proposes to withhold it. Those judges, called in the Bill the designated judges, are the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. If the Lord Chancellor or any of the designated judges is satisfied that approving the application would be incompatible with the statutory objective or the general principle established in clause 15, he must refuse his approval. If, on the other hand, each of the judges concurs with his proposal to give approval, approval will be given.
  The Government consider that those arrangements continue, in an appropriate way, the long-established involvement of the judiciary in the control of proceedings in the courts in which they sit. However, the arrangements regulate the exercise of judicial involvement in that area by reference to the statutory objective and the general principle established in the Bill. For example, if a designated judge were to refuse to concur with the Lord Chancellor's proposal to approve an alteration to the rules of conduct of, say, the Law Society, his refusal would have to be compatible with his specific duty, imposed by clause 16, to act in furtherance of the statutory objective and in accordance with the general principle. If it were not so compatible, it would be subject to judicial review.
  The Government believe that the establishment of safeguards for the public, by the means that I have described, is a proper and important function of the Bill. It is intended to secure, as a result, that only those who are adequately trained, experienced and regulated will become newly authorised to exercise rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation.
  Advocacy is not only a particular skill; it is a particular service to the courts and to the public, and one upon which the courts implicitly rely. It is important that all those

  1449
  wishing to appear in the higher courts should be appropriately trained and qualified. It is important also that the courts can always rely upon an advocate placing his duty to the court before his duty to his client.
  The framework in part II of the Bill permits change to evolve in the light of all those considerations, and subject always to the over-arching safeguard that the proper and efficient administration of justice must be maintained. The safeguards rightly embodied in the Bill in no way detract from the aim of removing unnecessary restrictions, which is the policy which part II is intended to implement. Yet they are wholly compatible also with the great importance that the Government attach, as the Lord Chancellor has said, to the continued existence of a vigorous and independent Bar.
  The second way of permitting development to be created by part II of the Bill concerns the right of financial institutions and others to do the conveyancing work that is currently restricted to the legal profession, notably solicitors and licensed conveyancers. The Bill sets up an authorised practitioner scheme. The proposals will supersede those of the Building Societies Act 1986, which have not been implemented and which will be repealed.
  The proposals in the White Paper would have enabled the Lord Chancellor to recognise professional and other bodies as suitable to grant their members the right to provide conveyancing services to their borrowers, subject to appropriate standards of competence and conduct. However, when more detailed development of this proposal was carried out, it led the Government to conclude that, on balance, it was better to set up a single regulatory body responsible for the authorisation, supervision and discipline of the new authorised practitioners.
  The Bill therefore establishes a new and independent Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board to take on those functions. It will have the duty to seek to develop competition in the provision of conveyancing services. Its constitution, procedure and powers can be found in schedule 5. The board may make rules providing for a compensation scheme for clients who have suffered loss through dishonesty by authorised practitioners or their employees. Conveyancing work by solicitors and licensed conveyancers in private practice will continue to be regulated by the Law Society or by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. The board will be required to set up a conveyancing ombudsman scheme, to which all authorised practitioners must belong. The conveyancing ombudsman, not the board, will deal with the individual customer's complaints.
  The Government recognise that, for most people, the process of buying and selling their homes is the most important financial event of their lives and accordingly the Government take consumer protection issues in that area very seriously. A mainstay of consumer protection under the authorised practitioner scheme will be the regulations on competence and conduct to be made by the Lord Chancellor under clause 39. The matters which may be included in those regulations are based on those set out in the code of practice, whose main principles were published in the Green and White Papers last year.
  As the Lord Chancellor has said in another place, those regulations will be the subject of wide consultation and
  1450
  they will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It will be one of the functions of the board to make arrangements designed to ensure that authorised practitioners are complying with those regulations. The Lord Chancellor has wide powers under clause 39 to make regulations covering not only matters relating to competence and conduct, and the protection of the interests of clients, but also the maintenance of fair competition between authorised practitioners and others providing conveyancing services.
  Those provisions are designed to develop, with proper safeguards, further competition in the conveyancing market. The Bill will prevent the tying-in to a mortgage of an obligation to purchase other services.
  The Government do not believe that the existing national network of independent solicitors will be undermined by these initiatives. We are well aware of the importance of ready access to legal services for the public, and of the importance of local solicitors' firms in all our constituencies to secure that. But I think that solicitors will be well able to compete to retain conveyancing business in the future. A survey carried out by the National Consumer Council showed that over half the population would prefer to have conveyancing done by an independent solicitor rather than by a lending institution, and that confirms the findings of a separate Law Society survey.
  I am sorry to take so long, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Bill covers a wide ambit and I hope to cover the main provisions. I have nearly finished.
  The third way to permit development which is established by the Bill consists of new arrangements about probate work. The Bill proposes that banks, building societies, insurance companies and their subsidiaries should for reward be able to prepare applications for a grant of probate. At present that work is restricted to solicitors, barristers and notaries. Institutions will be required to belong to a suitable complaints scheme.
  There is also provision for the Lord Chancellor to extend to professional or other bodies, having consulted the advisory committee and the President of the Family Division, the right to authorise their members to do this work if they satisfy statutory standards of conduct and of competence.
  The Government attach much importance to the need to maintain the present high standards of competence and integrity in the provision of legal services. We believe complaints procedures that are truly effective are an important way to achieve that. The Bill accordingly provides for the creation of a new legal services ombudsman, with a significantly wider jurisdiction and greater powers than were given to the office of the lay observer, which it replaces.
  The ombudsman will be able to investigate the handling of complaints by professional bodies that relate to solicitors, barristers, notaries and licensed conveyancers; to investigate the original complaint; and, where a complaint is found to be substantiated, to recommend that compensation be paid by the practitioner or by the body concerned.
  The Law Society has also put forward to the Government proposals to amend the legislation governing its own complaints handling powers and procedures, and in particular to allow it to direct solicitors to pay compensation to clients who have received inadequate

  1451
  professional services. The Government have welcomed that initiative and they intend to bring forward the necessary amendments as soon as possible.
  The Bill also removes or clarifies a number of miscellaneous, statutory or common law restrictions on the organisation and practice of the legal profession.
  Practitioners will no longer be stopped by law from making even limited kinds of conditional fee arrangements, and barristers will be able to enter into contracts for their services.
  The statutory ban on solicitors entering into partnerships with other professionals will also go. That will not, however, stop the Law Society adopting professional rules to deal with such matters if it wants to do so. The point is that the Government see no justification to retain such a provision in main legislation.
  The Law Society would also be enabled to make rules regulating the formation of partnerships with lawyers from other jurisdictions. Secondary legislation under the Companies Act 1985 will also be brought forward to allow such partnerships to be formed with more than 20 partners, provided that the majority of the partners are subject to regulation by an appropriate professional body in the United Kingdom. That would remedy a concern raised in another place about the practical scope for such practices to be established.
  Further provisions in part III of the Bill amend the qualification criteria for judicial appointments to reflect the changes in the arrangements for grants of rights of audience, and they revise the judicial pensions legislation, primarily to provide more fully for widowers' pension rights. Part IV amends the Solicitors Act as regards the regulation of the solicitors' branch of the profession and part V amends the law governing arbitration to permit an official referee to act as the sole arbitrator with the approval of the Lord Chief Justice.
  Finally, there are a number of miscellaneous amendments which, for example, make provision in connection with the liability of magistrates and their clerks in actions for damages, and the award of costs in magistrates courts.
  Heaven knows what tortuous transactions within the shadow Cabinet led to the decision to invite the House to vote against the Bill. It is a decision of which the right hon and learned and, I suspect, rather unhappy Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on the Opposition Front Bench is the mournful inheritor. He will find it an inheritance of the kind that the Romans called hereditas damnosa—because he cannot get rid of it, and yet for all his considerable eloquence it will cost him his credibility to defend it.
  As Mr. Marcel Berlins asked in The Guardian last week:
  "Just what is the Labour Party's policy towards the Lord Chancellor's Bill on the legal profession? Does anyone know?"
  For this is a Bill which simplifies going to law, and makes it quicker, more convenient and more cost-effective. It widens the choice of practitioner—whether advocate, litigator or conveyancer; it stimulates competition; and it fortifies the client who has a grievance by creating an ombudsman for conveyancing and an ombudsman for legal services.
  By all those measures and more besides the Government intend and believe that the public will have better access to justice. The Opposition wish the House to vote against the proposals, but I commend them to the House.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a second reading to the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords], which proposes substantial changes in the organisation of the courts and legal profession, but which fails to ensure sufficient resources for the efficient administration of the county courts; which fails to make the financing and administration of the courts and legal system accountable to this House; which neglects to deal with the denial of eligibility for legal aid, and fails to address itself properly to ensuring wider opportunities for legal representation; and which misses the opportunity to modernise the system of selection and appointment of the judiciary."
  It was interesting that in his last few remarks—perhaps it was a Freudian slip—the Attorney-General was conceding that the Bill would be the interitance of an hon. Member on this side of the House; we noted that with glee. Perhaps he had not thought out the matter, because he was not looking at his notes at the time, but we take that concession and we shall use it fully, perhaps in a reasonably short time before the next election comes. We thank the Attorney-General.
  Hardly anyone would quarrel with the Government's aims, as expressed in the Green Papers, to ensure that the public has the best possible access to legal services and that those services are of the right quality for the needs of the client.
  The quarrel, which goes wider than the political spectrum, as the Attorney-General knows, is whether those aims will be achieved, in particular since the Government rely on free competition and the discipline of the market to achieve them. The writer of the Lord Chancellor's Green Papers and the White Paper is the handmaiden of the Department of Trade and Industry. They reek of the furnaces of that Department. I suspect that the fire had been lit before the present Lord Chancellor took office, probably unbeknown to his predecessors. It is against that background that we should judge whether the philosophy of market forces is appropriate for achieving the best for the consumer in an area where so much is taken on trust, and where integrity and independence are so vital.
  It is sad and wrong that this is the first opportunity that the House, as the provider of supply, has had to discuss any of the proposals, which were first published as far back as January 1989. That underlines the need to transfer accountability for those parts of the Lord Chancellor's Department that deal with administration and finance, now that it is a significant spending Department, to the House.
  The purpose of the Queen's courts, meeting as we do but a stone's throw from Westminster hall, is to serve the state and the citizen and in so doing to hold the balance between the Queen's peace, her Government and her subjects and between subject and subject.
  The legal profession is the servant and the agent of those needs and exists for that purpose. It must be independent and fearless. The judiciary, drawn from that profession, and in whom is entrusted the holding of the balance, must of necessity be independent. Too frequently these days it is a popular cry to attack the judges. From time to time, I fear that individual judges deserve criticism. However, where there is a need for independence and

  1453
  integrity no one can be better trusted than judges, hence the need for them to exercise the greatest care when making extra-judicial comment.
  However well-merited a proposal may be, it is of the utmost importance to weigh it against the background of whether it undermines the independence of the profession or of judges.
  Labour Members do not disagree with the Government's proposals to open up advocacy to those who are properly qualified; hence, perhaps to the disappointment of the Attorney-General, we shall not vote against the Bill. We are concerned about its implementation and what is omitted from it—in the time-hallowed way of objecting to proposals as a whole because of omissions.
  I make quite clear where our starting point is, in case it has escaped the attention of the Attorney-General. We shall not take up the cudgels on behalf of any part of the profession for the sake of obstructing the increased availability of talent in advocacy where it is of benefit to the client. I have no intention of defending over-restrictive practice for the sake of it. I fear that I am old enough to remember as a young circuiteer the restrictions on appearing off-circuit. Over the years, the Bar has rightly dismantled those restrictions.
  Fears have been expressed about some of the present proposals and certainly about some of the original proposals. Some of those fears have been reduced, and the present proposals are an improvement on the Green Papers. With a little more groundwork and consultation, some of those fears might have been avoided.
  I wish to ensure that the independence of the judiciary, which I hope we all treasure, is not undermined by a bureaucracy which owes itself to the favour of a Minister, who after all is a political figure. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee must be funded through the Consolidated Fund to mark its independence and staffed to ensure, so far as practical, independence similar to that of the judiciary. Lord Rawlinson, a distinguished former Attorney-General, said in a dramatic part of his speech in the other place that nowhere outside a Marxist state does a Minister appoint judges and have the ultimate say in who may appear in courts before those judges.
  The Lord Chancellor is therefore right to distance himself from too direct an involvement in the latter. It is right that he at least shares the ultimate responsibility with senior judges. Any attempt to water down the collective responsibility of judges, who have exercised such rights since time immemorial, would be wrong. We shall consider how the collective wisdom of judges is exercised. It is important that they are perceived not to be obstructive to the aims of the Bill if it is approved by Parliament. As the Attorney-General said, they will have to take account of the Act, and the advisory committee, with its lay majority, will be open to judicial review of their actions. To many, it is inconceivable that they would be obstructive, but it has been said and we should face up to it. I do not share that view.
  Why do I lay such stress on the distancing of the licensing role of the Lord Chancellor compared with judges? For the administration of justice, Labour intends to create a Department that is directly answerable to the House. We are all aware of the anger of many hon.
  1454
  Members when a judge makes imprudent remarks, perhaps in a particular type of case. With a Minister directly answerable to the House, one can imagine a similar outcry when an advocate is denied his right to practise. It will therefore become even more important for the Lord Chancellor or his successor to minimise his involvement.
  How important it is to have fearless and independent advocates when the Executive must be challenged in, for example, the process of judicial review, which involves many immigration cases, or where the cause is so odious that it is only because advocates are independent and fearless that the client can be satisfied that his case is being properly fought and that popular belief does not attach to the advocate the odium of the cause.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am not certain that I have correctly understood him. Having stated the importance of an independent legal profession, he seemed to suggest a diminution in the independence of the judiciary by making their pronouncements subject to criticisms and overview in the Chamber. That would lead to political interference in judicial independence. That appertains in some systems, but I hope not in a parliamentary democracy such as ours.
  Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at my remarks he will discover that I said nothing of the kind. I underlined the Attorney-General's commitment to judicial review of any licensing in which judges are involved. I pointed out that, unhappily, judges are criticised inside and outside the House. When a Minister is directly involved in licensing, it will be not the judges who are criticised but the licensing and the actions of the Minister. That is the point that I was seeking to make. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I made it badly.
  It would be a sad day if the finest advocacy were not available for odious cases to ensure that in the dispensation of justice every argument had been advanced in the exercise of every man's right under Magna Carta.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Am I wrong in believing that it is not possible to criticise judges in this House other than on a motion of both Houses?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Lady is quite correct, but I have not heard the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) criticise a particular judge.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that judges can be criticised in the House, which is not so.
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) misunderstood my point. I am saying that, unhappily and regrettably, judges are criticised, whether one likes it or not. It is no good the hon. Lady shaking her head. I have been here long enough to know the correct processes. The hon. Lady has also been here a long time and knows that, rightly or wrongly, judges are criticised. I was not criticising judges but saying that when a Minister is directly answerable to the House, taking over some of the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor's Department and being involved in licensing, more

  1455
  criticism will be made of him than when a judge occasionally makes an intemperate remark that does not find favour with people inside and outside the House. I hope that I have made my point abundantly clear. I thought that I had made it clear the first time, but I certainly made it clear the second time. I hope that I carry the hon. Lady with me now. [Interruption.] If I have not made it clear, I am prepared to repeat it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That would be tedious repetition.
  Mr. Morris: I bow to your wisdom, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that I had made my point clear, but I am quite prepared to repeat it for the hon. Member for Lancaster.
  It would be a sad day if odious causes did not have the availability of the finest advocacy to ensure that in the dispensation of justice every argument had been advanced in a particular cause. During debates in another place, the cab rank rule became more a matter of concern. Today the Attorney-General called it non-discrimination.
  If enshrining that rule was expected to, and would, undermine the widening of advocacy rights in the Bill to qualified people, I would have no truck with it. It should not do that. As the Lord Chancellor said some years ago, wearing his hat as leader of the Scottish Bar,
  "this obligation is an important constitutional guarantee from the point of view of a citizen's freedom of access to the courts."
  The rule does not exist for the sake of the Bar. It must be improved upon so far as it is exercised by the profession. It is not perfect and I welcome what the Attorney-General said about that this afternoon. The rule is part of the price that the Bar, as advocates, has paid for its monopoly of audience in the superior courts.
  What should the rule mean? A practising advocate must be prepared, in the interests of enhancing access to justice, to take instructions from anyone, however odious his cause, in the field in which that advocate practises. Advocates cannot pick the popular as opposed to the odious causes or the easy as opposed to the difficult cases.
  If we extend the privilege of advocacy, with it must go the burden of the cab rank. The client will know that he will have an advocate of his choice, subject of course to availability. The judge and jury will know, because of the nature of the advocate's duty to appear, that he is not identified with his client's cause. It would be short-sighted if the consumer failed to comprehend the magnitude of his loss in the long term if the rule was not maintained. It would be a grave restriction of the client's right of choice if the rule disappeared and all advocates were able to pick and choose.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: There is an anxiety here in that barristers, by introducing the clause about cab ranking, have tried to restrict competition from solicitors. As we are talking about the cab rank rule, is there not a case for saying that, as with black cabs, there should be a restriction on trade if there is a monopoly? If the principle is to be applied to two professions, should we not recognise that there are minicabs as well as black cabs and that there must be two systems instead of one?
  Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend is wrong. If the rule disappeared or was not maintained or improved the client would lose. The rule matters not one iota to the profession. It is a burden on the profession, but a burden that it is
  1456
  prepared to carry, and has carried from time immemorial, as part of its privileges. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has done much for the consumer and the client, but they would lose out if there was no one left in the profession prepared to de fend them. That is the important point.
  The Yorkshire ripper must be defended and there must be a defender for the odious cause. The defence of an individual's liberty would be weakened if advocates were not available to defend that odious cause. We will have to examine the Attorney-General's proposals with great care to see what practical difficulties arise and then try to ensure that there is an effective solution that protects the consumer and the individual, because the principle exists
  for him.
  I want now to refer to the extension of the rights of audience to all Crown prosecution service employees in the Crown courts. I fear that I envisaged Treasury pressure for that some years ago when I addressed a conference organised by Justice on the future of the profession. I surmise that it is the Treasury's belief that prosecutions by in-house advocates would be cheaper. The CPS employees believe that that practice will enhance their career prospects. All that is understandable, although it goes against assurances given by Lord Hailsham when the CPS was set up. However, we should examine that point.
  In the immediate future, and perhaps for quite a few years, the CPS has enough work to get its house in order in relation to its existing functions. I do not blame the CPS for that. Rather, I blame its Treasury masters for under-funding and under-establishing the service. I believe that CPS employees receive inadequate salaries for their work and the responsibilities that they carry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who assisted me in the House at the time of the creation of the CPS, warned the Attorney-General of the price that the service would be paying in its inability to attract the required number of staff because of the salary scales. Despite the improvements, my hon. Friend has been proved right.
  Frankly, the Law Officers lost their battle with the Treasury over pay and they either badly under-estimated staffing levels, or they lost that battle, too. The service has still not recovered. I suspect, therefore, that the exercise of an extension of the right of audience is not an immediate prospect. I am concerned about the long-term effects.
  A distinguished Treasury prosecutor, Mr. Roy Amlot QC, wrote a most challenging letter that appeared in The Times on 23 February last year. He underlined the importance in any serious crime of the independence of the prosecutor
  "owing no allegiance to the Government or Government Department, not motivated by results, advancement or the approval of his superiors."
  He ended his letter stating:
  "The Green Paper has ignored a principle which ought to be of fundamental importance—the guarantee of an independent element in the State machinery of justice."
  We must decide where the greater gain lies. Would independence be less or more with in-house prosecutors at Crown court level? Do serious and difficult cases require the independence that exists today? What would be the effect on the junior criminal Bar? What would be the effect of polarising advocates at the high level into prosecutors and defenders even more than they are sometimes today?

  1457
  What would be the dangers if judges in future were drawn more from the ranks of prosecutors who had never defended?
  The immediate gains of possible Treasury savings and enhancing career prospects should be weighed carefully against probable weightier disadvantages. It is curious that the Government, who are bent on privatising anything that moves, or anything that does not move, should consider further nationalisation of prosecutions. That has happened already. I wonder whether the Government's Right-wing think tanks have been consulted. The Prime Minister has an interest in the Bar and I have just read that she has become an honorary fellow—whatever that means —of the American Trial Lawyers. Does she know what the Attorney-General is about?
  I want now to consider the importance of the high street solicitor. He or she is the public's point of access to the law. It would be a grave disadvantage to the public if his or her role was made more difficult of if services were made less comprehensive. The small firm will look carefully at the development of the City mega-firm with its in-house advocates who may be coralling all the work at its expense. I share some anxiety about institutions undertaking conveyancing work. We all want to make conveyancing as cheap as possible, particularly when the most important commercial transaction in most people's lives is buying a house. Certainly, over the years that process has become very much cheaper. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby has played a notable part in that process.
  Safeguards regarding the independence of advice have been written into the Bill. As I said, the purchase of a house is the most important commercial transaction of people's lives. There have been massive developments in recent years with financial institutions taking over estate agencies. It is therefore even more important that the consumer is safeguarded and that the advice that he obtains is independent. Hon. Members will examine that part of the Bill more carefully.
  There are two outstanding omissions from the Bill. The Attorney-General has dealt with them in part. First, there is a failure to ensure that adequate resources are provided for our county courts. Despite the Attorney-General's words, we certainly welcome the institutionalisation of the civil justice review in part I. Great progress has already been made by judges in redistributing work from the High Court to the county court under section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984, and masters and registrars have also transferred cases down. I was glad to hear of the number of county court centres where continuous trials can be heard. Nevertheless, there are horrendous tales of a lack of resources in county courts. Before the system in the Bill works, there must be adequate resources, and staff will need to be paid at a rate that will retain them. The state has taken their dedication for granted for far too long. What is the current rate of resignations by court staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department? Are the figures double those of comparable sections of the civil service?
  I was shocked to read accounts in the other place about courts running out of their allocation of postage money, about a five-month delay of a 10-minute hearing in Birmingham, about a four-month delay in Bromley before a petition could be issued, and about a six-week delay in Swindon to get an injunction to protect a woman from her
  1458
  violent former boyfriend. If they are right, such tales mean that it is a pretty awful situation. The general public are probably under the impression that all trials continue from day to day until a case is finished. As the Attorney-General said, there is an increase in the number of places where there are continuous trials, but they may be the exception rather than the rule. What proportion of cases not finished on the same day must wait weeks before they are allocated another day to continue the hearing? The increase in costs is enormous, the strain for the litigant is unacceptable, and the pressure to settle in the meantime is considerable.
  It is not only in county courts that penny-pinching rules the day. The other day, I was told of a court where the phone had been taken out of counsels' room because takings did not meet charges. In other courts, incoming calls are not allowed because there is no money in them for the Lord Chancellor's Department. I do not know of a court in which phonecard telephones are installed. In a profession in which communication is of the utmost importance and when the public and the profession need to be kept in touch, one marvels that the courts run as smoothly as they do. That telephone instance is just the tip of the iceberg. One hears horrendous tales of cash limits on courts and immense delays until more cash is made available merely to reply to correspondence. The Law Society has stated the problems in some detail in its memorandum to the Lord Chancellor.
  There is strong evidence that the present county court system is working under great disadvantages. I welcome the increases envisaged and reported by the Attorney-General. If the Lord Chancellor's Department were properly accountable to this House for its finance and administration, as Opposition Members envisage in our motion, we would have examined matters long ago, either through a Select Committee or through other means. In the absence of a Select Committee, the Department has been able to avoid proper scrutiny. Until adequate resources are available part I of the Bill should not come fully into operation. Although the Lord Chancellor has accepted an amendment relating to an annual report on the business of the High Court and county courts, we must ensure that resources are available. It should be a statutory requirement to provide adequate resources for the courts.
  I now refer to the Government's failure to provide adequate resources for the operation of the legal aid scheme and, in particular, the failure to extend legal aid to tribunals. Legal aid has been allowed to wither on the vine. It has been estimated that in 1979, 80·9 per cent. of householders were eligible for legal aid. By 1989, the figure had declined to 57 per cent. In 1979, 79·1 per cent. of individuals were eligible. Ten years later, the figure had declined to 53 per cent. Mr. Michael Murphy of the London School of Economics' department of statistical and mathematical science stated:
  "The assertions by successive Lord Chancellors and their Department, either that eligibility has remained unchanged or questioning whether previous estimates demonstrating a considerable fall are accurate, are inexplicable on rational grounds."
  The Lord Chancellor, to meet widespread criticism, held a press conference shortly before the Queen's Speech, announcing "a new approach", which included this Bill. As the Attorney-General mentioned, that new approach included a general review, which will take up to three years, and a package of improvements for pensioners, children and personal injury cases. No comparable

  1459
  changes have been made in green form eligibility. The Attorney-General estimates that the changes will increase eligibility from 56 per cent. to 74 per cent. in personal injury cases.
  But what of other matters in which assistance may be required? The president of the Law Society, Mr. David Ward, and the chairman of the general council of the Bar, Mr. Peter Cresswell QC, recently wrote a joint letter to the Lord Chancellor because of the profession's concern about declining eligibility. They share that concern with the Lord Chancellor's legal aid advisory committee. They pointed out that the basic uprating of about 5·2 per cent. will not even keep eligibility limits in line with inflation,
  "let alone reverse the savage cuts in legal aid made over the past few years."
  They are concerned with the formula, the scope and the time scale of the review. They endorse the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee's view that
  "the downward drift of eligibility levels might gather momentum over this time."
  They also pointed out that better targeting—this was mentioned in the Attorney-General's speech—might result in fewer people being eligible and might mean that those who are just above the eligibility level could be prevented, on financial grounds, from pursuing their legal rights argument. It is disingenuous for the Green Papers to suggest that the no win, no fee proposals will allow greater access to the law and somehow compensate for the lack of any extension of the legal aid system.
  The president and the chairman have misgivings about the review being conducted behind closed doors and suggest that there should be an independent review, reporting within six months. I entirely agree. Not only is the existing legal aid scheme being allowed to wither, but there appears to be no hope of extending it to tribunals. The Bill's long title includes the challenging words
  "to make provision with respect to legal services".
  Unhappily, the opportunity to spell out the path forward has not been grasped.
  I wonder how many hon. Members have had to deal with case after case in their surgeries of constituents who are to appear before a tribunal in the following week with claims for mobility allowance, constant attendance allowance or unemployment benefit, for example. Although hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds are at stake, we know that many people go to those tribunals unrepresented. There must be something wrong if someone can get legal aid for a comparatively minor action in the county court, worth perhaps less than £2,000, yet a worker with 20 years' service, aged 54 and earning £200 per week, who alleges that he has been unfairly dismissed, receives no help whatsoever in presenting his case. He may not have the support of a trade union, whereas his employers may have in-house lawyers and will certainly have recourse to solicitors and barristers to represent them at the industrial tribunal, if they so wish. That employee might have a claim of up to £12,000 on the facts, but within the framework of the present legal aid system, no matter how strong his claim and no matter how large his potential award, he cannot get legal aid to assist him at the industrial tribunal. What is the logic—
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Mr. Morris: No, I shall not give way because I have almost finished.
  1460
  What is the logic of drawing a distinction between those two cases and how can that distinction be maintained? Mr. Ward and Mr. Cresswell have expressed their concern about the lack of progress on tribunal representation. They suggest, first, that an order of priority should be worked out for extending legal aid to certain tribunals, starting with appeals to the social security commissioners. Secondly, they suggest that consideration be given to funding a national network of agencies for tribunal representation. That could at least be a start and we all await the Lord Chancellor's reaction.
  In the absence of a positive reaction and in the light of the omissions that we have identified in our motion, while I do not recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill's Second Reading, I urge them to support our motion in the Lobby.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I imagine that the debate will be dominated by lawyers. Indeed, I see around me in the Chamber predominantly hon. Members who are lawyers. The House knows that I am no lawyer, so I hope that I shall be forgiven if I make a few comments about the Bill from the point of view of the general public and their more mundane dealings with the legal professions.
  I begin by giving the Bill a general welcome. I am especially glad that it has come to the House with a good deal more support from the various parts of the legal profession than it looked as though it would enjoy at one stage. That is to be welcomed. I pay tribute to the Law Officers who, I know, have worked hard to try to bring to Parliament a Bill that is not as contentious as at first appeared. If my right hon. and learned Friends on the Front Bench will forgive me, I want to pay a special tribute to the Lord Chancellor, for whom I have had the greatest possible admiration during the 11 years since he joined the Government.
  However, I am concerned at some of the Bill's implications for some of the more mundane legal services. I am all for competition between lawyers and anybody else who is capable of performing competently the legal services that we are accustomed to solicitors performing. However, in the welcome move to opening up this area, I am concerned that, in fairness, we should not put solicitors at a disadvantage. Over the years, I have played my part in criticising solicitors and I do not suppose that I shall stop now, but they perform a great service to the public and it would be wrong to throw out the baby with the bath water, as the Bill does in certain respects. The principal purpose of my remarks is to draw attention to some of those instances and, in so doing, I acknowledge the advice that I have received from Westmorland Law Society.
  Clauses 46 and 47 deal with probate. The Bill proposes to extend, under strict controls, the groups of people who are able to carry out legal work on deceased people's estates up to the point of a grant of probate. I have no quarrel with that. Until now, such work has, in practice, been confined to solicitors and to the trustee departments of the banks because, under the existing rules as I understand them, only solicitors can apply for a grant of probate. If that work is to be extended to wider groups, as the Bill proposes, we must ensure that those groups are competent and properly regulated. I am content that that seems to be being done. However, why is there no

  1461
  provision for regulation of the next stage, the administration of estates after the grant of probate? That work is enormously important, but I cannot find any proposals in the Bill to regulate the way in which solicitors —who in the past have been closely regulated in such matters—should administer estates after that point. Why have the Government not gone the whole way beyond the point of the grant of probate and applied regulations similar to those that already exist for solicitors to the new groups of people?
  Sir Anthony Grant: We should bear it in mind that those other bodies, such as banks, charge on average two or three times as much as solicitors for administering estates.
  Mr. Jopling: I do not know whether that is still the case, but my hon. Friend used to be a solicitor, so I am sure that that is a heartfelt point.
  Creditably, the Bill puts right an anomaly in relation to mortgages. As things are at the moment, if a solicitor who arranges a mortgage for a client also arranges insurance cover, by arranging an endowment policy to cover the mortgage, as I understand it, the solicitor must account to his client for any commission of more than £10. In the past, that rule has not applied to a building society, so the present situation is fundamentally unfair. I am glad that the Bill puts it right to an extent. I notice that it will be put right by a regulation by the Lord Chancellor under clause 39, after the Bill has received Royal Assent. It is essential that, in clause 39, the regulations under subsection (2)(g) ensure that all authorised practitioners operate on a level playing field with regard to the disclosure of commission. That is an important consumer protection and I hope that that undertaking can be given.
  My last point is about conveyancing. Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said how important conveyancing is. It is perhaps the most important single transaction that many people undertake in their whole lives. I welcome the setting up of an independent body, the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board, to make sure that those who will deal with conveyancing, apart from lawyers, are properly policed.
  The Bill does not adequately deal with the onus on authorised conveyancing practitioners to give what the Financial Services Act 1986 describes as "best advice" on the financial services which are on offer. I say that because the position now is that many building societies are tied to a single insurance company. Here lies the problem. While a practitioner who is not tied to an insurance company must give that best advice on the whole of the insurance market, that is not so for the practitioner who is tied. I was surprised to discover that.
  I received a letter dated 23 October last year from the Lord Chancellor on this point. He said:
  "In the case of the tied agent, however, this 'best advice' will be restricted to the range of products which are available from the company to which the adviser is tied."
  As I understand it, that means that advice from an untied practitioner should never be worse but could often be better than the advice from a tied practitioner such as a building society tied to an insurance company. That is a
  1462
  most unsatisfactory position, and I hope that the Government will consider ways of surmounting the problem.
  I suggest three ways in which the problem could be overcome. First, it might be possible to insist that the term "best advice" cover the whole of the insurance field, not, in the case of tied practitioners, simply the field available from the insurance company to which the practitioner is tied. Secondly, practitioners who are tied to an insurance company could be forced to provide more than one quote for insurance covering a mortgage. Thirdly, no practitioner could be allowed to place, say, a third, half or two thirds of his firm's life policies with any one company. Those are just three ideas that I throw out for consideration by my right hon. Friends.
  I began by saying that the issues that I wished to raise were mundane. However, they are of crucial importance to a vast proportion of the general public. It is on probate, conveyancing and mortgages that the great majority of British people come across lawyers. I hope that those matters can be considered, and that, as the Bill continues through the House, it can be improved in order to deal with them.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is under no obligation to apologise for speaking in the debate. This lawyer not only forgives him but welcomes him. Too many of our debates on legal subjects are confined to lawyers. If I may, I shall develop that theme in a few moments.
  It is not every Bill that I wish to see initiated in another place and arrive in this House after an eventful career elsewhere. Most Bills of a controversial nature are better if they emerge from this House, where we can decide on principle whether they should survive or be mercifully dispatched, and proceed to another place for more careful scrutiny. Whether there is a better way of scrutinising Bills is not a theme on which I wish to embark in this debate. We have troubles enough for today.
  But with this Bill our task has been facilitated by the careful examination that it received in another place. In deciding on its general principle, we know what is in the Bill, what is in the package, how it is wrapped, how it is likely to be presented and how and when we shall see it unwrapped. When we go through the Lobby tonight we shall know what is on offer. Perhaps uncharacteristically, I express gratitude to the other place for the careful scrutiny that the Bill has received.
  I do not wish the Attorney-General to get the wrong idea. We shall not be entirely idle in Committee. I understand that the Lord Chancellor has taken up certain themes from another place which he wished to reconsider. It will be in the interests of constructive discussion and of the Government's business managers if they are introduced in good time in Committee.
  Then again, the Attorney-General introduced a wholly new matter into the Bill today. I imagine that we shall probably welcome it, but I should have preferred to hear it for the first time from the Attorney-General rather than from my contacts in Fleet street. But let us not introduce a sour note into the debate at this early stage.
  We shall not be entirely idle in Committee. We may have the odd improvement to suggest. I do not think so ill

  1463
  of the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor as to believe that they will all fall on deaf ears. However, it would not be realistic to hope that we can change this into a different Bill. When hon. Members go through the Lobby tonight they will know pretty well what is on the stall.
  At the outset I declare an interest. I am a practising member of the Bar and I have been so continually for 37 years with an interruption of only five years when the Crown was my only client. It is true that for much of that time the Bar has not been my principal activity. But it has been one of my activities and whatever the other advantages of practising at the Bar, it has made me a better-informed, if not necessarily a wiser, parliamentarian. So I am sure that the House will make due allowance for whatever I say, and rightly so.
  When an activity assumes the name and rank of a profession, practitioners are under numerous constraints to observe faithfully the standards of that profession. The original professional training, the opinion of the practitioner's peers, the social and cultural influences and, after a time, sheer habit are important protections for the consumers of those services. But what those standards are and the way in which they are expressed must be examined from time to time by people who are outside those influences.
  I welcome the intervention of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale because any profession may be tempted to adopt practices and to persuade itself that they are in the public interest when they really stem from the advantages that they confer on practitioners. That is one reason why I welcome the provisions in the Bill for the ombudsman.
  There should be no complaints from the Bar when we are occasionally subjected to an inquiry by a royal commission, even if it transpires that ultimately its recommendations are ignored, as in the case of the Benson commission. The Lord Chancellor's Green Papers have impelled the Bar to look again at some of its own practices and itself to initiate some important changes.
  I hope that other lay Members will participate in the debate and I shall try not to inhibit them by continuing for too long—[HON MEMBERS: "Famous last words."] Popularity is a wonderful thing.
  I hope that I shall be forgiven if I take a moment of the time of the House on Second Reading to raise two questions of general principle. The first is the form of the Bill. It is largely an enabling Bill, which means that it does not say what will happen if it is passed into law, but it confers powers on various people to decide what will happen and when. We are asked to delegate powers to the Lord Chancellor to alter the allocation of business between courts and decide what is an authorised body, to the rules committee to decide on procedure and to the advisory committee to advise on the whole field of legal services and the work of the courts.
  Some anxieties were rightly expressed in another place by Lords Rippon and Simon that Parliament is not being asked to examine the position to discover whether this is an appropriate time to open the floodgates for a vast increase in the work of the county court and assess whether the county court is in an appropriate condition to absorb and process it. We are being asked to empower the Lord Chancellor to decide when, and under what conditions, that will happen.
  1464
  I need hardly say that I cast no reflections on and intend no disrespect to the present distinguished occupant of that high office. Indeed, it would be churlish not to place on record that his accessibility during the discussions on the Bill, and his generosity with his time, should serve as a model for all Ministers. However, there are judgments and assessments to be made as to whether that transfer is an appropriate step to take and, if so, whether this is an appropriate time to take it. Those are the responsibilities of Parliament. We cannot decide everything. Some of our problems relating to the length of our sittings, and the difficulties of including every hon. Member in our business, relate to our reluctance to delegate decisions which other legislatures find it sensible to delegate. You, Mr. Speaker, know that better than any of us.
  But some of these decisions require a balance to be struck between different considerations and interests. They are political decisions, although probably not party-political ones in this case. They are decisions about how best to conduct the affairs of the body politic and they should be decided by the political process, after political debate by those who have to answer to their constituents at weekends and, probably, explain them in the British Legion club at 10.30 pm on a Saturday—[Interruption.] Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) does not have a British Legion club in his constituency. My hon. Friend indicates that he does, so I am receiving a sympathetic response.
  It is not a complete answer to every question raised in the Bill to say that the Bill leaves the decision to the Lord Chancellor or distinguished senior judges or the advisory committee; we must assume that they will apply the right criteria and reach sensible conclusions.
  If the Bill makes it possible for someone with no legal qualifications to acquire a right of audience in the High Court—I am not talking about barristers and solicitors, but people with no legal qualifications—and, having acquired that right of audience, to move from there to be appointed to the highest ranks of the judiciary, it is not enough to say that those who will advise on such matters will use their common sense and will not recommend unsuitable appointments. If we do not think it appropriate for those without legal qualifications to be appointed Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, we should not give anyone, however distinguished, the power to make such an appointment.
  I venture to warn the Attorney-General, if he will forgive me, that if there is the power to appoint a surveyor as a High Court judge, in five years' time an hon. Member will ask the Attorney-General of the day how many surveyors have been appointed High Court judges. Someone will say, "If Parliament conferred the power, why has it not been exercised?".
  It should not afford us great comfort to reflect that the delegates who take those decisions may be open to challenge. That merely introduces a further degree of uncertainty. If the rules relating to rights of audience are to be delegated to the Law Society and the general council of the Bar, it does not greatly cheer me to reflect that the Director General of Fair Trading may disagree with them and challenge what they decide. The considerations which may be uppermost in his mind, and which he is required by statute to have in mind, are not necessarily the considerations that we believe should prevail. That raises the second issue of principle which I want to introduce into the debate.

  1465
  The avowed purpose of the Bill is to extend to consumers of legal services a wider choice. I do not quarrel with that as an aspiration. Indeed, we shall wish to explore in Committee how far the proposals are likely to achieve that purpose. We shall wish to explore how far siphoning off some of the ablest law students into large law firms will extend the choice of advocates for lay clients—particularly if those firms are multi-disciplinary ones—and how far pressures on the high street solicitor, about which we have heard from the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, will maximise the choice available to house buyers.
  However, even as an ambition, this is subject to two qualifications—I say that in all friendship to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). First, not all measures for the protection of consumers consist in maximising their freedom of choice. The purpose of food hygiene regulations is to restrict consumers' freedom of choice to those foods guaranteed not to poison them. It is important that the range of consumer choice should be restricted to those capable of doing a proper job. It is tempting for someone in the process of buying a house to leap at the prospect of a single-stop package to include finding the house, arranging the mortgage, providing the insurance and carrying out the conveyancing, particularly if it seems that some of those services will be offered at cut rates. Sometimes, consumers are better protected by eliminating some of the options.
  Secondly, in the sphere of litigation it is not invariably true that the interests of the consumer coincide with the public interest. The interests of an unmeritorious plaintiff or a guilty defendant consist of winning the case at all costs. The interests of justice require that the consumer's choice does not extend to those prepared to bend the rules in order to win.
  I recognise that the Attorney-General is subject to some constraints as a member of a Government who believe that the solution to almost every problem lies in a free market. But I am sure that even he, with his usual fairness, will agree that this sector of the free market has its limitations.
  May I add an observation on a further theme which has sometimes intruded in debates in another place? When it has been suggested that a particular formal safeguard would be sensible, it has been asked, "Are you suggesting that a person is necessarily dishonest just because he is not subject to the disciplinary code of the Law Society or the general council of the Bar? Do you believe that because someone may owe a loyalty to those who employ him, he is incapable of giving objective advice? Are you saying that because someone does not have a professional qualification, it follows that he is a jabbering idiot?" It is easy to ask that sort of question, and it can be asked in the right context to great effect. Of course, the answer in every case is no, but because people may be honest in the absence of regulation and capable in the absence of qualifications, it does not follow that all formal regulations are a waste of time. Even in the absence of a cab rank principle, an eccentric, an exponent of an unpopular cause or someone accused of a vile criminal offence may find a capable advocate to argue his cause. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, it is much easier for an individual advocate to do the right thing if there is such a rule, partly because it creates
  1466
  an atmosphere, a general expectation that he will behave properly, and partly because it is much more difficult for anyone to misunderstand his motives.
  I am not an unqualified admirer of Thomas Hobbes; it does not follow that in the absence of institutional safeguards everyone will behave like a brute, but such safeguards add a bit of stiffening to the social constraints that we sometimes all need if original sin is not to take over.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that discussion so far has centred on the rights of professional bodies, but that it should centre on the rights of the individual, the protection of the public and ensuring that they are given the best possible services?
  Mr. Archer: I cannot always reply to my hon. Friend with an unqualified affirmative, but on this occasion I have no qualifications to add to what he said.
  It is a pity that, with the machinery of law reform now at our disposal, the Government did not initiate a wider discussion and, in particular, did not provide more time for bodies, which themselves needed to carry out wide consultation, to respond to some of the proposals. It might have helped if the Government had begun by seeking a consensus on what is wrong with the legal system. What are the complaints of those who use legal services? I believe that any such consensus would have identified two major areas of complaint. The first would have been that referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend—about hearing dates in the county courts, unanswered letters, under-provision for continuous hearings, unrealistic lists and sharing clerks in the Crown court. Anyone told that the answer to those problems was to transfer more work to the county court could then at least have judged the proposal in the light.
  The other area in which there would almost certainly have been consensus was also referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon—the provision of legal aid. The last speech that I was privileged to make from the Dispatch Box in 1979 was to introduce the Legal Aid Bill of my late right hon. and learned Friend Lord Elwyn Jones. I am sure we all agree that his absence from our debates on this Bill is much to be regretted.
  The Legal Aid Act 1979 brought between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the population within the ambit of legal aid. After all the statistical sophistries to which we have been subjected over the past two years, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, it is now generally accepted that that figure has fallen to about 50 per cent. We know that in whole areas of litigation legally aided representation is not available, and that levels of remuneration and delays in payment are persuading increasing numbers of firms of solicitors to refuse to offer—because they feel unable to —a service to those who depend on legal aid.
  A further problem is becoming increasingly apparent. There were references in another place to those who have the resources to finance a moderate action, including perhaps a day in the High Court, but who would be bankrupted if they had to pay for a long hearing or a series of appeals. If justice is to be available to all, including the middle-income groups, we need to replace the present cut-off point with a sliding scale, so that everyone may have access to legal aid if confronted by actions that are beyond his means.

  1467
  The Society of Labour Lawyers has persuaded the Labour party that there is a need to take a much wider look at the network of advisory services, to ensure that proper arrangements are made for referrals within the system, and to seek out those geographical areas where some essential services are missing. We need an advisory services commission to oversee the present shambles which is spread out across seven Government Departments. Such proposals are referred to in the response of the Society of Labour Lawyers to the Green Paper—a response that I commend to the Attorney-General.
  Both in the courts service and in the provision of legal services there is a need for a more substantial commitment of public resources. In the absence of that, the proposals in the Bill are pointless. Given that, some of them deal with problems that will have ceased to exist. There is, for instance, no need to embark on contingency fees if we have the resources to provide legal aid and representation. It is easy to ask for more money; it is just as easy to reply that one does not solve a problem by throwing money at it. We have heard that antiphon many times, but it is certain that the problems of our courts and legal services are those of inadequate resources.
  If we want a legal system that will continue to receive compliments from America and commendations from foreign lawyers, we shall have to pay for it at the going price. We are conning the public if we pretend that our debates on this Bill are a substitute for that.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Anyone happening to drop by the Chamber and being privileged to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General opening the case for the Bill would have been forgiven for thinking that nothing very important was happening here this afternoon, except for some very good and sensible improvements to the legal system. Such is the consummate skill of my right hon. and learned Friend as an advocate that he has persuaded himself that the Bill is universally good and universally welcomed and that anyone attempting to criticise it subjects himself to an inheritance of damnation.
  I wish that that were so, but the casual listener would have been shocked to discover the immense opposition and heat that the legislation has engendered. He would, for example, be shocked to realise that the major element of the Bill was considered by the Benson royal commission in 1979. In 1983, this very Government said that it was not necessary to give solicitors the right of audience in the higher courts; in 1985, they repeated that assertion; and in 1987 they repeated it again. Yet overnight, with no change in the circumstances of our legal system, this Bill has introduced precisely such a change.
  The casual observer would also be shocked to know of the packed meetings of barristers and solicitors up and down the country, of the hours of vituperative though often brilliant speeches and debates in the other place, and of the hours of negotiation, discussion and amendment behind the scenes.
  Why has this happened? It is because it is widely feared that the Bill, even in amended form, will be the beginning of the end of the independent Bar and of the separate branches of the legal profession, which have been among
  1468
  the greatest protectors of the liberties of the individual in our free society, which continues to be admired the world over—and envied in many countries.
  I declare an interest as a practising barrister—when my political duties allow—but I want to make one point clear: contrary to what is apparently thought about the opposition to the Bill from the Bar, members of the Bar have little self-interest in opposing the Bill. Certainly, the strong objections of the Law Lords have nothing to do with self-interest. The Law Lords have no career structure to maintain which might be threatened by the Bill and no financial advantage from opposing it—their interest is purely the good of society. Most barristers would, be financially much better off if the Bill were passed. I have no doubt that I would be better off both as a Member of Parliament and, in the unlikely event of my leaving this place at the next election, if I were to become a full-time solicitor advocate. So let us hear no more ill-informed nonsense of the kind that has led some Members to say that lawyers were bound to oppose the Bill anyway. If self-interest only were at stake, the Bar would support the Bill.
  The Government's intention in the Bill is wholly excellent. It is to improve access to justice for all who need it by making the court system simpler, more efficient and quicker and by providing sufficient legal services to meet clients' needs. That is terrific—everyone can sit back and admire the intention. The trouble with the Bill is not simply that it cannot and will not attain that intention, but that many of its provisions will achieve the very opposite.
  Almost the entire legal profession, which at least enjoys the advantage of knowing how the legal system in England and Wales works, fails to understand how this of all Governments can believe that if solicitors in villages and small towns—71 per cent. of solicitors operate in firms of four or fewer partners—have their conveyancing bread and butter taken from them and are thus driven to practise in larger towns and cities, that will somehow make their services more available to ordinary people. Ordinary people will have to get into trains, taxis and cars, travel to the big towns and cities and go to the new big firms of solicitors which will charge people immense sums for the minor items of advice which formerly they could have received in the local solicitor's small practice. This is because the operating overheads of large city firms will be substantial. It is manifest nonsense to assume that such a step will provide ordinary people with greater access to legal services.
  It is impossible for many of us to understand how it can be an advantage to make the Bar wither away and encourage every young lawyer to become a solicitor. Youngsters leaving university will be given the choice. If they want to become a barrister, they will have to spend some time earning little or nothing and at the end of the day they will compete in the market for jobs all over the country, which they may or may not want to do. The work will come in dribs and drabs and most of it, particularly in the criminal sector, will be legally aided and therefore without substantial remuneration. Work has been done on the average income of members of the Bar and it is much lower than is generally believed. On the other hand, the youngsters may become solicitor advocates with the right of audience in the higher courts and the right to become a Queen's Counsel and a High Court judge, just like barristers. They will have a roof over their heads, constant work, a car, a pension and holidays with pay. Few

  1469
  university graduates will choose the uncertain career of the Bar in preference to the far more secure and certain career of solicitor. After a time, fewer people will go to the Bar, nearly all graduates will become solicitors and the Bar will wither away.
  Solicitors cost much more than barristers. That is why in the courts in which solicitors may now operate they often prefer to use barristers, because they are cheaper. The Crown prosecution service in London has to pay twice as much for a solicitor as for a barrister to do a day's work. It is difficult to see how anybody can believe that the provisions in the Bill and the withering away of the Bar will make legal services cheaper. That is yet another manifest nonsense.
  Nor do the majority of the legal profession see how the introduction of the win-at-all-costs philosophy, which means that one may not be paid much or at all if one loses a case, as half the litigants in our courts usually do, will as though by magic improve the quality of justice in our courts. We do not have that incentive to win now, so there is a greater belief in the integrity of our lawyers, and justifiably so, than if we had the American system where winning is important if one is to be paid. That is not just nonsense, but dangerous nonsense.
  The three objections to the fundamental concepts of the Bill are therefore that it will make justice more and not less expensive, that it will make legal services less and not more available to consumers lower down the income scale, and that it will diminish the quality of justice itself. It will do those things not because they are in the consumer's interest, nor because there has been an enormous increase in public demand for those changes, but because some bureaucrats, politicians and perhaps some lawyers from another planet simply do not understand the legal system in England and Wales because they have neither knowledge nor experience of it.
  Obviously, some things are wrong with the legal system, and the Government's Green Papers have put a good deal of momentum behind some of the changes. The Bar has produced an excellent response to the Green Papers. Considerable changes have been made and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has acknowledged and commended them. That has been a positive result of all of this.
  Let us face up to the true facts and not pretend in order to justify some diversionary, tactical changes, about what consumers find wrong with the legal system. It is not that they do not get enough legal aid or legal aid for enough legal actions and that they therefore do not have enough access to the courts. The Government would have to spend much more money to satisfy that demand. Will they do so? They will not. I do not pretend that I am in favour of the Government spending massively more money, but ordinary people complain about the need for more money for more legal services, not about the matters provided for in the Bill. Next they complain that they have to wait too long for their cases to come to court. We need more computerisation, more judges, more courts and more court staff if we are to satisfy that demand, which will cost much more money. Again, some may want the same lawyer always to be available for their case, but that costs much more money because the lawyer has to be paid to be out of court for the days or weeks until the case appears in
  1470
  the list. It is therefore difficult to believe that the genuine anxieties of the British people about the deficiencies of our legal system come down to anything other than money, genuine efficiency and the improvement of the court system. It is difficult to think of any major improvement in our legal system that the British people feel is necessary which the Bill will achieve, and we should be wrong to pretend otherwise.
  The Bill is to some extent different from the original one and the Green Papers. We must recognise that and thank the Lord Chancellor for listening because that is precisely what he did. For that reason, certain crazy ideas—such as the certified advocate becoming more qualified the more flying hours he had clocked up—have gone out of the window. We must thank their Lordships for at least one important and necessary improvement which has been much welcomed in the House today—the insertion of the cab rank principle into the Bill for solicitor advocates—and we must thank the Government for their wise acceptance of that amendment. One of the main contributions of the Bar to the efficiency and availability of legal services is the cab rank principle. Just as the customer can pick any taxi cab from the cab rank, so any defendant or plaintiff, however mean and rotten his cause, can book the services of any barrister who may be available. Marshall Hall himself was available to defendants all over the country, and the same principle holds true today even if all that a defendant can offer is a measly legal aid fee.
  As with the taxi driver, the experienced barrister knows the quickest, most efficient and, therefore, the cheapest way to his client's destination and, as with the taxi cab rank, the client usually does not have to wait so long for his case to arrive in court as he would if there were no taxi rank. That is why it is so important that that principle be maintained for all to whom it now applies, particularly the advocate in the higher courts, and I am pleased that there will be no question of removing the principle from the Bill before it becomes law.
  Of course, that will be a burden for solicitor advocates who might prefer, for example, to go on taking work from insurance companies at fees which are much higher than legal aid fees, but, as the Opposition spokesman in the other place, Lord Mischcon, himself a most distinguished solicitor, and others on the Opposition Benches today have said, those who acquire the privileges of advocacy rights should be required to undertake the burdens and obligations which go with them and, I would add, particularly when the consumer will benefit.
  Some years ago my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor described the cab rank rule as an important constitutional right. Nothing has changed. It still is, and he has recognised it as such.
  Even with that addition to the Bill retained, however, there is still too much wrong with the Bill. I give some examples. First, if a high street financial institution—the bank or the building society—needs to lend money for the purchase of houses to stay in business, what kind of objective legal advice about buying a house will the customer really be given by the in-house solicitor? Complicated and expensive bureaucratic safeguards can be built in until the cows come home, but we cannot avoid the conclusion that such legal advice will not be independent and may not be disinterested.
  Secondly, by all means let us transfer work from the High Court to the county court, but first let us ensure that the county courts have enough slack and surplus capacity

  1471
  to deal with that work. What do we have today? The figures have been given by one hon. Member after another. We have overworked county courts, staff changes and shortages on an unbelievable scale, awful cramped buildings and inadequate back-up facilities. Since many county court and circuit judges do High Court work anyway, by all means let us bring litigants to local courts and not to London, but funds will first have to be made available to stop them being overworked and understaffed. What undertaking can my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General give that such finance will be forthcoming? Without it, what on earth is the point of the change?
  Thirdly, multi-disciplinary partnerships create another problem. This is an incomprehensible element of the Bill. What independent advice will a solicitor be able to give to a client who needs to sue a firm of accountants which has let him down badly if his solicitor is a partner in the accountancy firm? It is nonsense.
  Fourthly, under the Bill, incredible as it may sound —we are talking about the Bill being welcomed by ordinary people—a person with no legal qualifications at all will have the right to practise in any court and, once he has that right, to become a judge in any court, and even to become a Lord of Appeal. Under the Bill, a person with no legal qualifications can become a Lord of Appeal and lay down the laws of the land. That is manifest nonsense.
  Fifthly, the legislation's main intention was to break the monopoly of the Bar to conduct cases in the higher courts and to allow solicitors to be appointed as High Court judges. Although few institutions are as competitive as the Bar, it was thought that more competition was required. But solicitors can already become High Court judges—all that they have to do is to become barristers, so no great legislation or expensive bureaucracy is necessary if that end is desired. It is now easy for a solicitor to become a barrister. If solicitors want the right of audience in the higher court, they can become barristers. That is much easier than it was in the past.
  If further changes are considered so necessary, it could all be done cheaply and efficiently, without expensive bureaucracy and costly administration, if senior judges were allowed to consider the qualification of advocates and to grant rights of audience subject to the cab rank principle. Why is it necessary to have this complicated, bureaucratic and expensive machinery, with clauses 17 to 31 and schedules 1 to 4 laying down the process by which all that has to be done?
  If we have that kind of money to spare, why on earth are we not spending it on improving the courts or extending legal aid? I could go on, as the House well knows it is within my power to do, to dwell on the many unsatisfactory aspects of the Bill, but others wish to speak.
  I appreciate that the opportunity of the Bill has been taken to make a number of improvements in the courts and legal services and I accept those without taking time to enumerate them. Sadly, however, the Bill may well be the beginning of the end of the Bar as we know it, and a fused profession, which nobody on either side wants—solicitors, barristers or the public—will be the inevitable conclusion of these unnecessary labours.
  I realise that such is the unpopularity of the lawyer—ranking only marginally higher than that of the journalist and politician—that there is little likelihood that this unhappy, unfortunate, unnecessary and expensive Bill will not get its Second Reading, so our only hope will be to
  1472
  improve it. If, during the Bill's passage through the House, I am fortunate enough to be invited to participate in the Standing Committee proceedings, I hope that I shall be able to play some small part in making those improvements.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the responsibility of hon. Members who are now in the Chamber that we had a rather late start to the debate, but at this rate all those hon. Members who wish to speak will not be called. I ask hon. Members to ensure that their speeches are not over-long so that as many as possible may be called.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: First, I declare an interest as joint secretary of the all-party barristers' group of both Houses and, more particularly, as a practising barrister for nearly 20 years. I mention that not only to declare my interest but also to try to lay a myth, which exists particularly at the Department of Trade and Industry and in certain quarters of the House, about the Bar.
  It is nearly 19 years ago that I entered, as a tenant, the set of provincial chambers where I practised for some years. I had no prior connection with the legal profession and I was lucky to be accepted there. When I entered those chambers, the overheads were kept at a low level. I was given one eighth—there were eight of us in the chambers —of a piece of paper on which my head of chambers had written that my chamber expenses for that year would be £127. Thus I started my career at the Bar.
  As a member of the Bar in those chambers, I was not subjected to any sort of hierarchy. I was fortunate to be outside any hierarchical structure, because it meant that, if solicitors chose to send me cases which appeared to be beyond my years, I was permitted to do them.
  Thus, in Department of Trade and Industry terms, the Bar is the ideal profession. It is entirely market-oriented. Every barrister works for him or herself. They are eventually paid, often by recalcitrant solicitors and sometimes many years in arrears. I was recently paid £4·50 for drafting a divorce petition some 12 years earlier. Our overheads have kept at a low level throughout the years.
  It helps if one's father, or even one's grandfather, was the Lord Chancellor; it helps even more if one's father is the senior partner in a busy firm of solicitors with lots of litigation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Bar is an extremely egalitarian profession—as a procession of Lord Chancellors over the years serves to prove, if one examines their backgrounds. I am proud to be a member of such a profession.
  I accept the need, as do all sensible barristers, to cut away unnecessary undergrowth from the profession. It is in the interests of lawyers to modernise their profession —and if they do not do so themselves, they can only expect others to do it for them. The question which must be asked is whether the Government have approached this matter in the right way; the answer, as one would expect, is partly yes and partly no.
  The Bill's legitimacy depends on two criteria. First, and above all, it must seek to improve the position of the consumer. Secondly, it must not weaken the independence of the judge or lawyer, for to do so would weaken the position of the client, to allow challenges to be made

  1473
  against decisions of the Executive; where necessary, of the police; of local government; and of the increasing number of bodies in which are vested significant resources of power over the citizen.
  In the context of those criteria, I should like to raise a great many points. However, accepting the constraints of time, I propose to address only four issues of major concern. If I am fortunate—or unfortunate—enough to serve on the Committee considering the Bill, I foresee a great many more issues which will require detailed debate.
  The first issue is the ready access by the citizen to the courts and tribunals of the land when the occasion arises. That means having ready access not only to the courts themselves but also to competent advice from which he can gain confidence in deciding whether or not to go to court. The Bill merely touches the edges of that problem. I acknowledge that the Government have invested more money in the legal aid system, and I welcome the current review to which the Attorney-General referred when opening this debate. However, it is fair to point out—as did the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—that an increasing proportion of the population falls outside the limits of legal aid, which are too low and too selective.
  Every monthly increase in inflation means that a smaller percentage of the public is eligible for legal aid. Far too many people have experienced wrongs that should have been righted, but they cannot afford to go to law, despite the fact, which should be put on the record, that the cost of litigation in England and Wales—I cannot speak for Scotland—compares reasonably favourably with anywhere else in the European Community, and makes us seem like a bargain basement by comparison with even some of the remoter jurisdictions of the United States of America.
  The Bill and the Government's motives would be more convincing if they were accompanied by an immediate widening of certain aspects of the legal aid net. There are obvious gaps in legal aid that do not require a review before introducing remedies. I listened with care to what the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon said about tribunals. I believe that he agrees—though his remarks were a little impenetrable—that legal aid should be extended immediately to industrial tribunals. The last Labour Government took the deliberate and shameful decision to exclude it. That decision was not taken on the merits of the case but in response to the disgraceful bleatings of a few trade union leaders, who thought that their membership figures might drop if legal aid were available for industrial tribunals. That omission should be put right, and I do not have confidence in waiting for a Labour Government to do so because I am not convinced that they would. After all, Labour had plenty of opportunity to introduce such a provision before.
  Consumer access to justice depends also on judges and courts being available to hear cases that cannot be settled out of court. I welcome the commitment to take many cases out of the High Court, whose sittings—despite significant improvements in recent years—are delayed and whose places of jurisdiction are often many miles from the scene of a legal dispute. I welcome the decision to bring many disputes down to the county court. The civil justice review has much to commend it—at least in concept.
  1474
  The county court is intended as a local and, above all, as a summary court. As such, it should provide reliable, speedy justice. It has often been said that justice delayed is justice denied. The aim of the county court is to provide justice while events are still fresh in the memories of witnesses. Unfortunately, delays in some county courts have reached absurd proportions.
  Loyal county court staff around the country have expressed to me their extreme frustration at the ridiculous amount of work that they are required to undertake, in a way that sometimes subjects them to abuse from the public —who do not understand the difficulties under which court staff have to work. The Government have made a commitment to provide extra resources to ease the transition through the civil justice review, but their commitment is far less than that needed to make the review work.
  Over the past 11 years, county courts and Crown court offices have faced successive staff inspections pursuant to Government economic policies and designed to cut staffing —which is what happened. An entirely opposite approach will be needed to ensure that the review works. I hope that the Government will give an assurance that whatever resources are required to make it a success will be available —even if they amount to a great deal more than is currently anticipated. We do not want to see the Crown prosecution service fiasco happen all over again with the civil justice review. We do not want the Attorney-General coming to the House, as he did recently, to admit that initial resourcing—as in the case of the CPS—was insufficient.
  Another important aspect concerns the cab rank rule, or what the Attorney-General called the non-discrimination rule. I welcome the Government's acceptance that that principle should be enshrined in the Bill. It will benefit the consumer, but it offers no advantage to the lawyer, as was emphasised by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). It is much better to pick the best-paid case, but the cab rank rule means that the lawyer will have to undertake the case that comes in first.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Tell us another one.
  Mr. Carlile: I say to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—whom we would have allowed to enter our chambers despite his lack of qualifications, and who would have benefited from some training in interview techniques in the early part of his career—that there is very little evidence of abuse of the cab rank rule, other than anecdote. The Bar regards breaches of that rule as a serious disciplinary offence, and if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that people have broken it, he should report them.
  Mr. Mitchell: There is an enormous weight of anecdotal evidence, but to impose it on solicitor advocates is a restriction of trade and an attempt to maintain the monopoly of the Bar.
  Mr. Carlile: Since the hon. Gentleman became a television star, he has abandoned his attachment to the consumer.
  I made an important point during my intervention in the Attorney-General's speech, and I shall make it again: the Government must accept that the rule against discrimination should apply to legally aided clients.

  1475
  Advocates must be required to represent clients within their areas of competence, whether they are privately paying or legally aided; otherwise, the rule will not apply on a level playing field and the consumer will not benefit from it.
  Thirdly, the independence of judges, lawyers and regulators of the profession is single and indivisible. There are serious objections to the Bill in its present form, which threatens that independence. Inevitably, the Bill politicises the appointment of the designated judges. It ducks out of a radical and much more clearly understandable approach to the appointment of judges, such as the establishment of a judicial appointments commission. Worst of all, it creates a politically appointed advisory committee—another politically appointed committee, subject to all the problems of patronage. Thus it brings into the political arena the rules of conduct applied to practitioners—something that should be abhorrent to those committed to independence among lawyers.
  It is extremely surprising to see a Conservative Government seeking a power with such a dangerous potential for misuse in perhaps less happy future times. There is no significant evidence that either the Law Society or the Bar has failed to modernise its professional codes; indeed, the Bar's revised code of conduct is a model of progressive thinking and adjustment to the modern age.
  Another aspect of independence needs to be highlighted and protected—the independence of the advocate from undue influence or involvement. Of course the advocate should be involved, even devoted—in the professional sense—to the client's case. However, the scope for mistakes—and much worse than mistakes—is narrowed significantly if the advocate is not the person who interviews witnesses prior to conducting a trial, especially a serious trial in the criminal courts.
  It is equally valuable for those who prosecute serious cases to have considerable experience of defence work to secure the objectivity that is necessary if justice is to be done. One of the most difficult decisions that a prosecutor makes is to abandon the prosecution—to offer no evidence. It is the experience of defending cases—perhaps as many as he prosecutes—that enables an advocate to make that decision more correctly and skilfully.
  Finally, let me deal with local legal services. In my large rural Welsh constituency, there are firms of solicitors operating in Guilsfield—my predecessor as Member for Montgomery practises there—in Welshpool, Newtown, Llanidloes, Llanfyllin and Machynlleth. I doubt whether real intellectual justification can be found for the privileged position of solicitors if conveyancing is seen as an isolated activity or skill.
  However, there seem to be two sound if pragmatic reasons for retaining much of the present position. First, there is the great pressure that financial institutions and some estate agents are likely to impose on financially innocent home buyers. An independent voice is essential in what is the largest transaction in most people's lives. Secondly, local legal services in the form of solicitors—for example, in the places that I have mentioned—are heavily dependent upon, and in reality subsidised by, conveyancing.
  Those firms in such areas as Llanfyllin and Machynlleth will not be compensated by rights of audience; that is the last thing that they want. They like to obtain expert advice
  1476
  from counsel in chambers elsewhere, and would be embarrassed by their clients asking them to appear for them in the Crown court or the High Court.
  If conveyancing goes, large numbers of small firms of solicitors are likely to go to the wall. At best, they are likely to be subsumed in much larger firms, with a smaller fund of local knowledge and a consequent reduction in choice. As any practising solicitor in the House knows, local knowledge is crucial in negotiating the settlement of local disputes. People will become more litigious if a solicitor comes in from a city elsewhere and merely advises them on the legal issue under consideration, without having regard to local conditions. The Government have not addressed that problem adequately.
  The Committee stage promises to be a lively affair. We hope for considerable improvement in the Bill, which has the right to go to Committee: and I shall vote for that if necessary, and advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same. With my mind closely on the two criteria that I cited at the beginning of my remarks, I shall see how the Bill looks in relation to those criteria after its Committee stage. They will be our litmus test; I hope that the Bill will pass that test.
  6.57 pm
  Sir Hugh Rossi: I must declare some interests. First, I am chairman of the Lords and Commons solicitors group. Secondly, I have held a solicitor's practising certificate for 40 years—although for the past 15 of those years the demands of the House have obliged me to retire from active practice, perhaps enabling me to take a detached view of these matters. Thirdly, I am the chairman of the London board of a building society, a position that some might consider could give rise to a conflict of interest with some provisions of the Bill, but which helps me to consider the matter objectively.
  The House will not be surprised if I do not follow many of the right hon. and hon. Members who have already spoken, as all but one have represented the Bar. There is a contrary view for the House to consider. The Bill is clearly in the mainstream of the Government's desire to tackle restrictive practices—a policy that has brought immense benefits to our economy and to the consumer. The professions—especially the legal profession—cannot stand aloof from that, nor has the legal profession done so. Scarcely a firm of solicitors has not either merged with others or considered merging; they are evaluating themselves and planning their futures in the way that efficient enterprises do. With the restrictions on advertising and marketing gone, firms can now direct themselves towards the markets in which they plan to expand.
  In central London, the legal community serves the private client—more particularly, the corporate or commercial client—better than ever before, not only by our standards but by international standards. London is now recognised as the legal centre for Europe. Where else can a team of specialists in banking, shipping, aviation, insurance, financial futures or mergers and acquisitions be put together within hours, ready for a major international transaction? That could happen in New York, but nowhere else in Europe. Our legal firms in London and our other major cities are now the envy of nearly every other country in Europe. Our firms are poised to take full advantage of the European internal market, with the Law Society's 1992 awareness campaign leading the way.

  1477
  Of course, those firms are not representative of the whole profession. There are 55,000 practising solicitors in offices throughout the country. There is scarcely a high street in any town that does not have a sole practitioner or a two or three-partner firm, affording a network of accessibility to the legal processes and to justice. Speaker after speaker has recognised that that should not be undermined or destroyed. If the Bill unfortunately does that, it will be a sad day for this country and its people.
  While solicitors can be proud of their response to the spur of competition given by the Government, they are also proud of the solid foundation on which they rest, especially the consumer protection afforded by the regulatory system that we have inherited, in Solicitors Act after Solicitors Act, laying down the responsibilities that the profession has willingly adopted and accepted in self-regulation through the Law Society.
  A client dealing with a solicitors' firm can do so with confidence, knowing that that firm is insured up to £1 million for every claim that may be made against it. Clients' money is underwritten by unlimited compensation. Nowhere else in the country does anyone offer that sort of protection to the consumer. We need only to contrast it with the financial services industry, where there is no overall insurance system. Indeed, FIMBRA came near to collapse over the proposal to institute one. If a client's money is missing, he has to await bankruptcy proceedings before he can get a penny, and then the most that he can expect is £48,000, regardless of the size of his loss.
  The profession values, and attaches the greatest importance to, its independence and its ability to give impartial advice without fear or favour. The advice given by a lawyer who one suspects does not understand one's interest or is not fully committed to one's representation is virtually valueless. However, independence of mind, independence to give impartial advice, cannot be bought at the snap of a finger. Professional independence is underpinned by a tradition and a code of ethics that are regularly upheld. By the same token, that independence can be easily undermined. In the solicitors' profession, it is maintained by ensuring that only solicitors bound by the same code of ethics own the firms that employ solicitors who offer services to the general public. In the protection of the public, proper regulation and the profession's independence are linked.
  As has already been implied by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, at the end of the day the independence of the legal profession is the bulwark against too great an encroachment by the state upon the lives of individuals. That is why I questioned the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) when he suggested control over the judiciary by this House. God forbid that politicians ever influence or affect the judicial independence of our courts. I hope that that is not the way that the Labour party wants to lead us.
  I must refer to the Bar and the need for it to maintain its traditional independence. Solicitors have good and warm personal relations with members of the Bar. However, if the divided profession works in practice, it cannot be said to be based on a secure, modern foundation. While the solicitors' profession has adapted and modernised itself, the Bar collectively often gives the
  1478
  appearance, if not necessarily the substance, of being rooted in the past. Its monopoly of business in the higher courts and its resultant hold on all senior judicial appointments could, for the most part, be retained by common consent if the Bar did not persist in demanding a legal monopoly.
  I do not believe, and nor does any solicitor whom I know, that the giving of audience to a specially trained and qualified solicitor in the High Court would destroy or cripple the Bar. That has certainly not been the case in Australia or New Zealand. I do not believe that the right of audience in the lower courts has adversely affected the Bar to any extent. I am sure that only a minority of the 55,000 solicitors will wish to have the right of audience to the High Court and then it will be mainly for clients with whom they have developed a special relationship. The vast majority of solicitors—the general practitioners of the profession—would still need the specialisation offered by the Bar. The partners of the large City practices involved in mergers with international companies could not afford the time to be tied down in court, away from their desks and telephones.
  It is in that context that we welcome the Lord Chancellor's brave attempt in the Green Paper to set out a framework for reform. He had to withstand a withering, sustained and almost personal campaign from those opposed to reform. That campaign is far from over, as is clear to anyone who has followed the proceedings of the Bill in another place.
  What was his proposal on the reform of the profession? It was that solicitors and barristers should undergo further training after initial qualification and before exercising the rights of audience to the higher courts. To the credit of the Law Society, it accepted that a level playing field was not appropriate and that it was not necessary to require barristers to undergo further training. Nevertheless, it accepted the need for solicitors to have that training. That was a major concession, which has enabled the Government to introduce reforms in a much more simplified form than originally envisaged. The Law Society should be given full credit for that.
  The latest—and, I hope, the final—manifestation of the campaign by those opposed to reform was the amendment, carried in another place—proposed and supported by the Bar and the judges, against the advice of the Lord Chancellor—to impose what has already been referred to by member of the Bar after member of the Bar in this House as the cab rank rule on solicitors wishing to exercise the rights of audience in the higher courts. We shall study carefully what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in opening the debate. We shall have to consider carefully the amendment that he proposes to put down. If I understood him correctly, he said that the Law Society was reconciled to the cab rank rule. If that is the case, then he is mistaken. That is not so.
  The Law Society understands and would wish to participate in a system whereby there is no discrimination against an individual wishing to have access to justice, but that is entirely different from the cab rank rule as practised by the Bar. Whatever the merits that rule may have for the Bar, it is entirely another matter for the solicitors' profession. Barristers take work on referral only. That is part of their terms of business. They accept cases in their field of practice, and that helps to spread the work around for the benefit of the Bar in general and for newly called members in particular. The rule also provides useful

  1479
  protection for advocates who can rightly claim that it is not necessary for them personally to be associated with the cause that they advocate in the courts.
  However, I do not say that that means that every barrister has to take on every case that is put in front of him. There is a rule of the Bar which states, if I remember the wording roughly, that no member is obliged to take on any work for a fee which is inadequate in his view having regard to the complexity of the matter and to his knowledge, experience and standing. If that is not a coach and horses through the so-called cab rank rule, I should like to know what is.
  I shall give the House some anecdotal evidence. In my younger days I experienced great difficulty in negotiating fees with counsel's clerks, or securing the man I wanted for my client, because of that rule or something similar. No cab rank rule was applied in those cases. I cannot bring those papers before the House now, as they are more than 20 years old, but they are engraven on my memory as a young solicitor trying to represent clients through the courts. [Interruption.] Paragraph 502 of the barrister's code of conduct stipulates what I have just recited. Therefore, let us not have so much of this holier-than-thou attitude that member of the Bar after member of the Bar has entertained the House with.
  By large, solicitors do not operate on referral and the cab rank rule would be an unacceptable imposition. Some solicitors have built up practices by specialising in particular fields of work. In doing so, they have had to decline to represent certain classes of defendant. For example, some provide a service by specialising in housing work on behalf of tenants, and others have built up a relationship of trust with rape crisis centres. The business of those firms would be endangered, and the sensitive relationship between solicitor and client undermined if they—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Members of the Bar are talking who have no experience of running a solicitor's office.
  In some parts of London. to accept a landlord as a client would make it difficult for a firm to build on its reputation of representing tenants' interests. Similarly, to represent a defendant in a rape case is considered by firms which work closely with rape crisis centres as something that would cause problems for them, and would make it more difficult for their clients to accept that the firm is on their side and would do the best for them.
  The House has to bear in mind the fact that the Bar, which is always one step removed, has the solicitor as a buffer between the client and himself or herself, and it can afford to take a more detached view of the way in which it approaches the lay client, in a way that the solicitor cannot. If the cab rank rule, in its present form, proceeds, it would also prevent solicitors from offering advocacy simply as an additional service to existing clients, rather than to the world at large.
  Why should solicitors not be able to offer advocacy to existing clients? I should have thought that that would be in the interests of the consumer. Most solicitor advocates would not wish to be committed to advocacy all the time. If they did, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) suggested, they could join the Bar. They want to stay solicitors and they want to give a better service to clients. Why introduce into another situation a rule that is appropriate to the. Bar?
  Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I have been both a solicitor and a barrister. If one has 1,000 cases a year, all of which require Crown court advocacy, which one does the solicitor advocate choose to do? Will he not be picking and choosing the most juicy cases on his list? Is that not the danger, unless there is a cab rank rule?
  Sir Hugh Rossi: That is a matter for his client. The client would insist that the solicitor represents him or her in court. They would say, "That is why we came to you, because we heard that you are very good at this and we want you to represent us." The solicitor cannot afford to have the word go round that he is refusing business. He would soon have little business.
  Mr. Bermingham: That is not the case.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: That is the case, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. Because a solicitor does not accept some work referred to him, that does not mean that those clients are without a remedy, because the Bar is still there. We are only saying that that right should exist in certain circumstances.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) may appreciate that, if he builds up a reputation as a solicitor advocate and his firm accepts the cab rank rule, down the road, some rivals may say to themselves, "This is a nasty vexatious litigant, who will drive everyone mad." They will recommend him to go to the hon. Member's firm. They will say, "He will look after you." The vexatious madman will come along and the hon. Gentleman will be stuck with him under the cab rank rule. At least solicitors act as a filter for members of the Bar in such situations.
  The cab rank rule is neither necessary to ensure proper representation nor effective to ensure high quality representation. To impose it on solicitor advocates would unnecessarily obstruct the way in which solicitors could offer their services to the public. The Bar is well aware of that. The amendment was introduced in another place simply as a wrecking amendment, to ensure that solicitor advocates would not wish to exercise the right of audience in the High Court. That was the beginning and the end of this proposal. I hope that, when the Law Officers consider the amendment and bring forward their own form of wording, they will bear that carefully in mind.
  Conveyancing has been a live subject since the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) introduced his private Member's Bill some seven years ago. The solicitors' profession did not react well at that time. Its reaction may well have helped the Bill on its way.
  The Law Society did not accept the advice that hon. Members offered at that time, but it has reflected on it and it is not making the same mistake today. Whatever misgivings it may have about the results of the proposals, it does not seek to stand in the way of the Government's clear determination to allow institutions to provide conveyancing. It has confined itself to attempting to ensure that the safeguards necessary to protect clients are put in place. The mechanism that the Government now propose —a regulatory board—is an improvement on the previous proposal for a mix of regulatory authorities.
  If house buyers have the right to choose between an institutional conveyancer and a solicitor in private practice, they will have to exercise much caution when making that choice. The massive advertising budgets of the

  1481
  major institutions will stimulate and create demand. The one, two or three-man solicitor practices cannot begin to compete with that. Let us hope that the motives of the institutions are as they say they are—simply to offer a conveyancing service for the convenience of their customers. Can we be sure that that is true?
  The aim of the institutions may be to ensure that the house buyer, having been sold a mortgage and a life policy, does not realise that he has been oversold and does not need the expensive policies that he is proposing to take. Disturbing reports have recently appeared in the press of people being obliged to surrender their endowment policies on the advice of those selling them a house, offering them a mortgage and getting them to take on another endowment policy. The Institute of Insurance Consultants estimates that home buyers lose £680 million a year by unnecessarily surrendering endowment policies. We also know from those reports that agents do not always put forward the best offer to vendors because they will lose their commission if they do not persuade the vendor to do business with someone who is taking out an insurance policy through their agency.
  Independent financial advice for householders is more important than ever before. It is interesting that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—the only non-lawyer who has taken part in the debate—said that this was one of his greatest concerns. He gave a formula whereby the consumer could obtain independent advice on different insurance policies. But it does not end there, because modern thinking is that a mortgage could be better linked to an investment trust arrangement rather than to an endowment policy. Who will give that independent advice other than a solicitor who is streetwise and knows his way around the financial world and is in business simply to advise his client impartially?
  If the result of the Bill is that fewer house buyers have their eyes opened about the commitments and investments that they are taking on, that will be a cause for concern. It will be a sorry day if the House eventually accepts a Bill that does exactly that.
  I hope that the Bill will receive a fair wind on Second Reading. Much of it is long overdue and necessary, but there are some concerns which I hope the Law Officers will bear in mind in its final stages.
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the 10-minutes rule being applied today? Many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The 10-minutes rule is not being applied by Mr. Speaker today, but I repeat the appeal that he has made at least twice for shorter speeches; otherwise, many hon. Members will be disappointed.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall endeavour to respect your comments about short speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For that reason, I shall not follow the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), although I shall deal with some of the points that he made.
  Once upon a time, before the great Thatcherite revolution, which is supposedly encapsulated in this Bill
  1482
  and in many others that we have debated in the past 10 years, there were barristers and solicitors. Barristers argued cases in court and wore wigs. Solicitors sat at desks, interviewed witnesses, shuffled bits of paper and generally prepared the case. That was not the reality because barristers also sat at desks, wrote opinions and drafted pleadings, and some solicitors argued cases in court without wearing wigs.
  That was the position before the Bill. Let us consider now what will happen when the Bill becomes law. As I read the Bill, there will be a great metamorphosis. Barristers will become advocates, and solicitors will become litigators. Advocates will still argue cases in court wearing wigs and will draft opinions and pleadings. In the main, litigators will still sit in offices and prepare cases and litigation.
  The original attempt at a great revolution came up against the reality that there are two different functions —preparing a case for court and putting it to the court. Usually, barristers carry out one function and solicitors the other. One function is not superior to the other and the people who carry them out are not superior to one another. One is glad to see that those different functions appear in the Bill, because the public often think that employing a barrister and a solicitor is a conspiracy to extract more money from the populace and that it is some kind of restrictive practice for which there is no justification. We should commend the Government for the fact that in clauses 15 and 16 the Bill enshrines in statute for the first time the fact that there are two different functions—the function of advocacy and the function of the litigator.
  What happens when the great Thatcherite revolution comes up against the reality that generally it is better for the advocate to be an independent contractor and not subject to a contract of employment or a partner in a firm? The result, as we have seen before, is that a new quango is set up. Quangos were set up following privatisation of the telephone and electricity industries and most other privatisation measures and here again—lo and behold—there is to be another quango. It is a very good quango with 14 members and a chairman. No doubt they will be worthy people; some will be barristers, some solicitors and others worthy lay people. We all know how the Government appoint quango members. They do not do as the Labour Government tried to do—they do not try to be even handed. We all know how lay members to quangos are appointed under this Government. If they are friends of the Government, they are appointed. If they are not, they do not have a chance.
  What is the quango supposed to do? Schedule 2 tells us that it is meant to oversee legal education. We should all agree that that is a worthy objective. I have practised at the Bar on and off for the past 20 years, and one criticism of the Bar is that legal education does not provide the kind of training in advocacy that students should have before they sit their final exams. Years ago I lectured at the university of Chicago law school. I was very impressed with American law schools, although I accept that they are different institutions. In the American law schools, advocacy—training in the courts—counts towards the final examination marks. If the quango can improve legal education in that respect—I accept that there have been improvements over the past 10 years—nobody will object to that.

  1483
  What else is the quango supposed to achieve? Somehow it has to try to resolve the Green Paper's original intention to do away with the so-called restrictive practices. However, that intention came up against reality. The quango is supposed to bridge the gap between the advocate and the solicitor who wants to be an advocate occasionally, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green put it so well. The quango must deal with the litigator who wants to do a little hobble as an advocate, but the Bill does not explain the criteria. I suppose that that is par for the course. This great Thatcherite Bill tells us nothing—everything is left to Ministers and to the quango.
  As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, what will happen to the litigator who does not want to advocate all the time, but who has an old and valued friend—perhaps a landlord—for whom he has. been working for years and for whom he goes to court and does a case? Will he be able simply to walk into the court and put a wig on his head? What about the company lawyer who may have spent 30 years advising companies and who knows the theory of company law backwards? What if he decides to go to the companies court for an old and valued company? Can he simply drop into that court? Will he have to have a licence for that particular right of audience or will licences be granted to groups of solicitors?
  Mr. David Sumberg indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davies: It is no use the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), shaking his head. The Solicitor-General should tell us what criteria will apply and how the licences will be granted. I do not object, but I should like to know how the process will operate. I should like to know whether a one-off application will be allowed or whether the litigator will have to prove a track record over a period or an intention to have such a track record.
  The Attorney-General skated over the question of partnerships. I hold an old-fashioned view in that I believe that an advocate should not be a partner but should be a sole practitioner. I am not casting aspersions, but a partner is contractually bound to his fellow partners. He is almost a trustee in that there is almost a trust between partners. Should advocates enter into partnerships with other advocates? Should advocates enter into partnerships with litigators, and should litigator advocates be allowed to enter into partnerships with litigators? What happens in the multi-disciplinary partnerships which are now in vogue in the City and the west end?
  I do not believe that litigator advocates should be partners with litigators. I understand that there are firms of solicitors which practise in the county courts where there are partners and I do not believe that that can be changed. However, I should like the quango to lay down rules so that if a litigator wants to become an advocate, that is fine, but that the litigator should not remain a partner with his fellow partners because that could lead to a conflict of interest between the partners, the courts and the clients. The position is even worse when one considers multi-disciplinary partnerships.
  Let us suppose that a large firm of solicitors which specialises entirely in building and construction work decides to bring into partnership three or four surveyors who have worked for that firm in litigation over a
  1484
  considerable period. That would then be a multidisciplinary partnership of litigators and surveyors. Let us suppose that one of the litigators wishes to become an advocate. The partnership would then comprise litigators, a litigator advocate and surveyors. A case may come before the High Court in which the expert witness is a surveyor partner, the case is presented by the litigator advocate partner and the case is prepared by the litigator partner. I do not believe that the Office of Fair Trading would believe that that was in the interests of the consumer and in the interests of justice or that it would lead to greater efficiency or lower costs. There are great dangers in allowing such partnerships. In Committee I hope that the Government will tell us more about their thinking in respect of partnerships and how they see the quango developing the rules for partnerships between different parts of the profession.
  Everyone apart for the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green believes that the cab rank principle is a good thing. It has not worked perfectly and the rules are now being tightened. The answer is to tighten the rules again and apply them to all advocates and litigator advocates. It was ridiculous for the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green to argue the example of a firm of solicitors which specialises in landlord and tenant work and has always worked for landlords. He argued that, under the cab rank rule, that firm would have to work for tenants as well. That is an appalling and immoral attitude. Most solicitors would not agree with the hon. Gentlman. As David Napley pointed out in his article in The Times earlier this week, most solicitors would be happy to abide by the cab rank rule.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: I had in mind particular firms which pride themselves on their Left-wing views. Some firms in London concentrate on representing the interests of the tenant and will not consider a landlord if one should cross their premises. We must consider whether we are prepared to force those firms to do what they do not want to do.
  Mr. Davies: That is not a defensible argument if they wish to become litigator advocates. If they do not wish to do so, the problem does not arise. We are considering only those who wish to become litigator advocates, and the corollary of that is that they should accept the cab rank principle.
  In principle, I welcome part I of the Bill and the civil justice review. I welcome the eventual transfer of cases to the county courts, if funds are available and legal aid is approved. It is extraordinary that 70 per cent. of Bar members practise in London. If we could have an efficient county court system and a transfer of power, that would be a very efficient devolution of power in terms of costs, but it will take time and it will need money.
  Personal injury cases can now be transferred to the county court if the claim exceeds £5,000 and for claims up to £25,000 according to the intentions of the civil justice review. Very often those cases are very difficult and important because they affect human beings. It is important that funds should be available to the county courts to enable them to hear such cases properly and efficiently. I do not believe that the Bill will reduce costs or lead to more efficient justice, and it may endanger an independent Bar. The Government should state exactly

  1485
  how they intend to operate rules relating to applications for licences by those who are not barristers but who wish to become litigant advocates.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I hope that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will forgive me if I do not follow him directly, but hon. Members are coming under increasing pressure of time. However, I shall mention various matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I hope that he will be grateful for that at least.
  Hon. Members have begun their orations with a declaration of interest. We even heard the triumphant declaration, "I am not a lawyer," from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I, too, must make a declaration of interest. At least it is unique in that I am the first of the hybrids who have been called to speak, although the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has intervened briefly. For more than 15 years I was in active practice at the Bar. I am now a practising solicitor in so far as a solicitor can practise and be a Member of the House. I am proud to have a practising certificate. I think that I am the only hybrid who has gone from being a barrister to being a solicitor. Three Opposition Members have gone the other way. I hope that they are not frightened by my sudden presence in the midst of their former profession.
  I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that I did not change over to go rushing off to set up an advocacy practice. I am only too relieved—this remark has more serious significance than a flippant comment—that I no longer need to run round keeping judges waiting as well as be a Member of this House. That comment applies to the vast number of people who have chosen, at whatever stage of their careers, to opt for the solicitors' side. One does not become a solicitor to become an advocate.
  A further part of my declaration of interest is that, if the Committee of Selection so wills it, I hope that I shall serve on the Standing Committee and move various amendments on behalf of the Law Society, which I shall make plain when I move such amendments. Therefore, the pattern of this abbreviated speech is to set the scene for the information of Government Front-Bench Members and others of certain points that will be taken, some of which have been touched on in the debate.
  We are a divided profession—that is accepted in the Bill. Various horror stories and images have been raised in previous discussions on this measure and have crept into our generally sensible discussions tonight. I have no doubt that the profession will remain divided, that it has worked well, that it is as good as other legal professions anywhere, and that its standards are of the highest. That applies to all elements of the profession. Therefore, it follows that the system should be changed only very carefully. The Bill does that. I do not regard it as an extreme measure nor, with all respect not only to hon. Members but to Members of the other place, as an insidious gateway to matters such as fusion of the profession. Nevertheless, the profession must react to modern needs. It cannot resist all change.
  I spent a brief part of my Easter looking at some of the debates in the other place. Even in the calm serenity of the
  1486
  past few days, some judicial apoplexy seemed to occur in the otherwise sedate columns of Lords Hansard. It must be noted that some members of the judiciary and others went over the top in their initial reaction to the measure. As a barrister turned solicitor, I am most anxious that that does not happen in our debates and that we may be calm and constructive throughout our proceedings.
  By no means does the Law Society like everything in the Bill, and various aspects of that dislike will come out subsequently. I like to think that hon. Members have been constructive and that we shall seek to improve the Bill in the national interest, not in a sectional interest. Hon. Members and members of the Bar are mutually and generally concerned with high professional standards and the preservation of those standards by the necessary long-established controls. That point was made most eloquently by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), a former Solicitor-General.
  It is with pleasure that I note that this is not a party-line occasion. I hope that the two sides of the profession will come together on certain matters. Although we might get away from Government versus Opposition and vice versa attitudes, there is a danger that we might encounter solicitor versus barrister and vice versa attitudes. That would not be good for the overall outcome of the Bill when it leaves this place. Therefore, I expect some strange alliances in an effort to improve the Bill to the maximum.
  There are some specific concerns about rights of audience. There has been a lot of fuss about very little. As I said earlier in jest, the vast majority of solicitors have no interest in professional advocacy. With experience of both sides of the profession, I have no doubt that the Bar, with its obvious skilled practice and tradition in this regard—that is, the fact that it practises on a regular basis, which is necessary in court work will remain pre-eminent and necessary. The central point is that if, in maintaining those values, it makes itself out to be a bastion which in some way—with which I totally disagree—is so weak that it cannot survive without forms of privilege and what some would call restrictive practice, it will point the way to its own demise much quicker than anyone who has had anything to do with the Bill would have dreamt of.
  One would obviously want to look at the role and power of designated judges under the schedule 4 procedure; those matters were examined in the other place and they will be discussed again. Their role has not, to say the least, been inactive. Whether it goes to the extent that the judiciary should have powers of actual decision rather than a more consultative and interpretative role is something that we shall wish to consider against whether it is for the legislature, the Executive or both whether hon. Members should have the power of decision and whether judges should be kept in their normal, traditional and extremely distinguished place.
  Another matter of specifics is the number of judges on the advisory committee while preserving the lay majority. It might be rather nice if a circuit judge managed to get on to the committee, in so far as there might be an extra judge on it. It would be even nicer if that circuit judge just happened to be a former solicitor. One doubts whether that could conceivably happen, such would be the array of the establishment against such an idea. If solicitors can be sufficiently qualified, talented and able to be judges, perhaps they might have a place and an active role

  1487
  together with the other half of the profession and the judiciary generally on the advisory committee. I do not think that such a role should ever be resisted.
  Hon. Members have made considerable reference to the cab rank rule. What my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already said—and will doubtless say again—was not the same as the attitude taken by the Lord Chancellor in Committee in the other place, when the proposal was defeated, or on Report in the other place when, against the advice of the Lord Chancellor and the Government, the proposal was narrowly passed. From what has been said, it is clear that the cab rank rule has gained an almost hallowed status. In all honesty and humility and with all respect, in my legal career I cannot remember people going up and down the steps of my chambers, damning the cab rank rule and saying that their careers had been ruined because they could not take this or that case. Perhaps it was with such thoughts in mind that the national press used phrases such as, "a wrecking amendment", and that the amendment was promoted "by self-interest", and to "preserve the status quo" and even that it was "hypocritical in nature". Although it goes too far, that was the reaction of the outside world.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) more than addressed himself to the detail of the provision. The cab rank rule was very much in evidence in the early stages of my career. I appreciate that it is the ethos of the Bar that at five o'clock in the evening when one goes to the clerk's room in chambers, it is a case of "Cambridge for you", Ipswich for you", "London sessions for you" and of goodness knows where else. Subsequently in one's career, not only do the sort of rules and regulations that have already been referred to come into the fray, but availability also comes into the picture. I have never yet encountered a clerk who was not good enough at least to protect in general the careers of those for whom he was responsible.
  Under the veneer of so-called competition, we should not block out one of the Bill's central aims, which is the freedom of the poor old consumer, who sometimes comes less and less into the discussion when lawyers get going. As it stands, the clear purport of the provision is to put a solicitor off becoming an advocate in the area where he is most likely to be asked to become an advocate, which might be a case in which the client wants him to act and that he knows all about.
  Therefore, while I note the Government's present position, I must advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that that position is not wholly accepted. Although I noted down his words, I shall not remind my right hon. and learned Friend of them except to say that I know that he is talking about a principle rather than about the specific phraseology and drafting of that clause. The Law Society and many others will listen to all the arguments on this issue. The Government's change on this matter means that I must firmly register with my right hon. and learned Friends on the Treasury Bench the fact that those discussions will go further.
  A related question with which I hope we shall not have to bother—I regret that it has crept in—is the far-fetched argument that was raised in the other place that the separation of the preparation of a case from the advocacy of it is a hallowed principle that precludes a solicitor from becoming an advocate. I hope that we can avoid that
  1488
  argument. I am all for the objective role of the advocate, but it is wrong to use that as a hallowed principle to prevent the Bill's purpose.
  I hope that the following matters will be raised in Standing Committee. First, there will obviously be several amendments and matters to be considered in relation to conveyancing and to probate law, especially with regard to professional standards and the independence of advice. When it comes to the last word, perhaps the market place is not everything, and professional standards are something—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have always been a moderate member of the Government party, as Opposition Members should know, and I am now making a legal rather than a political speech.
  Secondly, I hope that the issue of conditional fees will be considered. I have always had great personal reservations about conditional fees. I know that within the profession there is broad acceptance of the Bill as it stands on this matter, but I wish to register this point of concern that I expect will arise again.
  My third point relates to multi-disciplinary practices. The Bar and the Law Society have a mutual concern about this. As such practices are being considered, at the very least we need to establish some tight rules.
  Fourthly, there is widespread concern about the performance of the courts, especially the county courts, which have already been mentioned. The Bill must address this concern satisfactorily, and in so far as it does so, that must be satisfactorily explained by the Law Officers.
  Fifthly, I welcome the proposals on the Parliamentary Commissioner. He must effectively cover court staff, who must not hide behind too wide an interpretation of what is or is not judicial or the result of some form of judicial action.
  A final important point that will need to be considered in Standing Committee is the fact that, just because the Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for judicial appointments, it does not mean that that function should be removed from being the responsibility of a Select Committee of this House.
  Whatever happens from now on, may the result of it be a better Bill.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: As a non-lawyer, I hesitate to intrude in these deliberations, but as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) mentioned fleetingly, the consumer must be considered. in all this. The Bill is welcome only to the extent that it is a long-overdue shake-up of a profession which, with honourable exceptions at every level—I acknowledge that —has managed to combine appalling levels of service, outrageous fees and a degree of self-satisfaction unmatched by any other profession. To the extent that the Bill does not achieve that, that job will remain to be carried out on another occasion.
  I am a socialist, but I must say that if ever a profession urgently needed a dose of market forces, it must be the legal profession. In saying that, I acknowledge the reservations expressed by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). The extent to which the Bill rises to the occasion must be measured by the outrage that it has provoked in the higher levels of the legal establishment. The Lord Chancellor made a promising

  1489
  start and provoked a vintage performance in the other place from the Lord Chief Justice, which provided a valuable insight into the judicial mind when the wig is off. I regret that the Lord Chancellor has been leaned on to some extent and that the original proposals have been watered down.
  Any measures designed to increase rights of audience in courts are welcome, as are measures to reduce delays, to break lawyers' conveyancing monopolies, to provide effective redress against incompetent lawyers and to widen the charmed circle of those who become judges—a glance at the latest edition of the "Freemasons Handbook" shows that there is some scope for improvement.
  In the brief time allotted to me in the debate I shall concentrate on a couple of omissions from the Bill. Judges have had quite a lot to say about the Bill in the other place and elsewhere so I hope that they will not mind if we have a thing or two to say about them. The retirement age of appeal court judges should be lowered as a matter of urgency to, say, 65 for a start. I believe that it was only in the last decade that the retirement age was lowered to 75, and even that failed to catch Lord Denning. Some attention should be paid to filling any vacancies that arise with persons whose horizons extend beyond the saloon bars of Surrey.
  The major point that I wish to make is that there is a major omission from Bills such as this which will have to be rectified. The Bill is wide ranging and it would have been appropriate for it to provide some remedy to deal with persistently alleged miscarriages of justice. It is becoming something of a legend in Britain that it is extremely difficult to persuade the Court of Appeal or, indeed, lawyers in general—with honourable exceptions —to own up to the possibility of serious mistakes. That is one of the more enduring features of our legal system.
  I was reading only this afternoon Ludovic Kennedy's introduction to "10 Rillington Place". He described the campaign that it was necessary to pursue before it was conceded after 16 years that Timothy Evans was innocent. That difficulty has become topical again in recent years as a result of a handful of celebrated cases. The Carl Bridgewater case is one of them, and the Broadwater Farm case is another. The best known are those of the six people convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings and the total of 10 people convicted in connection with the Guildford and Woolwich bombings.
  Everyone knows that one of the principal difficulties in those cases is that senior lawyers are unwilling or extremely reluctant to face the possibility that mistakes have been made by other senior lawyers. In the case of the Birmingham pub bombings, it is obvious that one of the major difficulties was that Lord Bridge, who was the original trial judge and is now one of the most senior judges in the land, went overboard in his original trial judgment and his going overboard was endorsed in January 1988 by the Lord Chief Justice. It is clear that before any progress can be made on that case, which is beginning to blight the entire legal system, the resignation or retirement of the Lord Chief Justice will be necessary.
  Before anyone cites the case of the four people convicted of the Guildford pub bombings as an example of the willingness of the judicial system to own up to mistakes, I remind the House that the convictions were
  1490
  quashed only because the Director of Public Prosecutions —an honourable man, for whom I have the greatest respect —went to the Court of Appeal. I was there and had the pleasure of seeing the Lord Chief Justice's face as he was forced, with clenched teeth, to quash the convictions. The DPP went to the Court of Appeal and asked for the convictions to be quashed in terms which left the Lord Chief Justice no discretion whatever.
  Many of those who were present on that occasion, including many eminent lawyers, were in no doubt that if the DPP had allowed the Lord Chief Justice the slightest discretion the Lord Chief Justice could have talked his way even out of the new evidence. I say that because I also sat through the Lord Chief Justice's disgraceful judgment in the case of the Birmingham Six when he performed intellectual gymnastics of a spectacular variety.
  Probably the most persistent miscarriage of justice, which most clearly demonstrates the great problem with our legal system—it will have to be addressed sooner or later and it is a pity that this issue is not addressed in the Bill—is the Cooper and McMahon case. In 1970 two men were convicted of murdering a postmaster in Luton. By about 1974 it became clear to the Home Secretary of the day that something was seriously wrong in that case. Four successive Home Secretaries between 1974 and 1980 referred the case to the Court of Appeal. On each occasion the judges sat, stonyfaced, and said, "We have heard nothing new—take them away." In 1980 it became so embarrassing that the Home Secretary of the day, William Whitelaw, because he could not devise a way to persuade the judges to own up, simply ordered the gates of the prison to be opened, gave the men a railway ticket each and sent them home without so much as an apology for the decade that they had spent in gaol.
  I fear that the same will happen eventually in the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. There are people of good will at every level and in all parties but no one can devise a way of persuading the Court of Appeal to own up.
  The Attorney-General: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's fairly familiar record, but the last phrase calls for some explanation, even from him. He said that there was no other way of persuading the Court of Appeal to own up. I hope that he will reflect on what he has just said. The Court of Appeal is obliged to deal with references from the Home Secretary, which take the form of appeals, on the evidence put before it. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Court of Appeal sat for some five weeks, that it considered all the evidence that the applicants sought to put before it and that it came to its decision in a judgment which is in the Library of this House, on the basis of that evidence. I hope that he will reflect on what he said about owning up.
  Mr. Mullin: I have had a great deal of opportunity to reflect on the matter. I was present throughout most of the 30 days of the appeal hearing. It is clear to me that many people in high places, although not necessarily the Lord Chief Justice, know that a mistake has been made—they knew for years that a mistake had been made in the Timothy Evans case—but they have great difficulty in finding a way out, as has been remarked on by commentators of the same political persuasion as the

  1491
  Attorney-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman comes from the merciful wing of his party and he knows the problem as well as I do.
  I am pleased to see that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs is present. In 1982, the Select Committee came up with a potential solution to the problem. It examined the matter in detail and made a good report. It unanimously recommended that some form of court of last resort should be set up with power to consider, among other things, evidence which was inadmissible before the courts. It is important to note that there would have been several non-lawyers on the panel. That was rejected out of hand by the Government, but after some negotiation the Lord Chief Justice—who, even then, was Lord Lane—promised more flexibility in taking references back from the Home Office. If he ever made that promise, he reneged on it. One of the most interesting paragraphs at the end of his judgment in the Birmingham case was uttered in the knowledge that the Guildford and Woolwich cases were in the pipeline. He said:
  "As with so many of these cases referred to us by the Home Office, the longer it went on the more convinced we became that the convictions were safe."
  In other words, "Don't waste our time by sending Guildford". The Department did send Guildford and we now see what happened.
  In 1988 the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and I attemped to amend the Criminal Justice Bill and implement some sort of court of last resort. We modelled our amendment carefully on the wording that the Select Committee had unanimously recommended in 1982. We attracted all-party support for the amendment. I regret that the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who was on the Committee in 1982 and was present during the discussion of the amendment, did not support it. Indeed, he sat in silence and made a dash for the No Lobby at the appropriate moment. I hope that he will now reflect on the matter and come to a different conclusion.
  The result is that we are now faced with further scandals which are corrupting the whole judicial system. Sooner or later a way out will have to be found. There is another possibility. Sir John May, a distinguished judge, is conducting an inquiry into what went wrong in the Guildford case. I have the highest expectations of Sir John May's inquiry, but the precedents are not all that good. The Brabin inquiry into the Evans case concluded, after he had been pardoned, that he probably had murdered the baby and not his wife. Sir Henry Fisher's inquiry into the Confait case concluded that the people who had just been released and had their convictions quashed were probably guilty. That had to be repudiated when the real killer was found. Lord Hunter's inquiry into what went wrong in the Meehan case concluded that Meehan probably had done it. He had to be repudiated when Meehan had to be given a large amount of compensation.
  The precedents are not good, but I approach Sir John May's inquiry with an open mind. I noted that in his opening statement he made it clear to the police representatives that if anyone attempted to persuade him that the purpose of the exercise was merely to reconvict people who had just had their convictions quashed, he would not hear evidence designed solely for that purpose. I hope that he sticks to that.
  It is interesting to note that the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society both submitted evidence to the
  1492
  May inquiry calling for some sort of court of last resort. A personal letter which I received from a Law Lord—I shall not embarrass him by naming him—states:
  "The case for a 'Court of Last Resort' is a strong one. We need an independent court of review freed from the burden of routine work and with no track record to defend, which can review fact and law and is charged to consider the whole case."
  That is an idea for which the time has come. I regret that the Bill has not seized the opportunity, but it will have to be done at some time because this scandal is beginning to infect the whole of our judicial system. I hope that eventually it will be put right, if not by the present Government, then by a future Labour Government.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: I begin by declaring an interest as a practising solicitor, and I shall try to make my speech brief. I have practised for nearly 20 years in a provincial firm of solicitors in the sphere of litigation, dealing with divorce, crime, licensing and civil work in the county courts and High Court.
  If anyone had asked any of my clients their principal worry, apart from the quality of my advice, he might have heard about three principal concerns: first, why does everything take so long; secondly, why does it cost so much; and thirdly, why cannot we get legal aid? Therefore, legal aid, legal delays and the costs of law are the three great worries of the average client. Any Bill on legal services should address those particular issues because they are the ones that worry the public. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is entirely happy that those three key issues are being addressed.
  I shall mention but two matters in the Bill: first, access to the High Court. Hitherto, we have been entitled to take our cases to the High Court. There has been no restriction, and anyone can begin a case there, whatever the case. That has been good. It is excellent to increase the jurisdiction of the county court, but I wonder why we are proposing to restrict access to our High Court. Might we not consider introducing competition into the court system, giving litigants the choice of which court in which to begin—county or High Court—and then directing resources to those courts that prove the most popular? The ability to go to the High Court, unfettered, is an important one.
  I sometimes worry that our High Court is monopolised by the big, corporate clients and foreign multi-national concerns, which have the ability to use our High Court system without paying a penny for the privilege, apart from their lawyers' fees. The more that such multinationals end up in our High Court, the less individuals from this country have the opportunity to take their case there.
  The second aspect of the Bill is the cab rank rule, referred to so frequently tonight. In the past, it has been applied by the Bar. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that, by and large, the Bar has applied it pretty well. In my experience during 20 years, the Bar has been good in that respect. Solicitors, however, have not had to abide by the cab rank rule, although in my practice I tried hard to do so. I have occasionally had to turn a client away, but by and large I took each case as it came, whether I liked the nature of the alleged offence and whether or not the client had legal aid.

  1493
  It is important that solicitors practising advocacy should take cases, whether they be legally aided or private, and give a consistent and high standard of service to all.
  I am glad that the cab rank principle has been inserted as a condition of obtaining new rights of audience. It is right that those who are granted the privilege of High Court rights should accept the burdens as well. I believe that I heard my right hon. and learned Friend say that he was considering exempting employed lawyers from the cab rank principle. If he did, I venture to suggest that this might be a mistake. I hope that in winding up my right hon. and learned Friend will develop that point.
  I am concerned about the state of the solicitors' profession in 1990, compared with the profession 20 years ago. I am not sure that, today, a council tenant gets the same quality of advice as he or she would have had 20 years ago. I am not sure that the elderly lady on moderate means gets the same quality of service as she received 20 years ago. I am not sure that the best advice is still available to the poorest. Why is that?
  There must be a variety of reasons. One may be that we are living in the days of the big battalions of law practices. I am worried that the big, slick city firms trawl round the universities, creaming off the best brains with the promise of corporate and commercial work in our big cities at treble the salaries of country firms. I am also worried that small firms in small towns amalgamate, and sometimes move out of town to create bigger organisations for the lure of corporate and commercial work. Other firms tend to concentrate more on the profitable work and delegate legal aid work to junior clerks or, worse, turn it away.
  I say these things not by way of criticism, because everyone is human, but as something which makes me sad. I do not think that we are moving towards a system in which the poorer people in our society will retain the best quality of service. About 20 years ago, people tended to join a solicitor's practice because they wanted to serve the community. They knew they would have to do some unpaid work for the public good, but there was a certain dignity in the profession. Now, I am sorry to say, at the end of the year too many partnerships look not so much to the service for their clients, but to the service for their fleet of BMWs.
  I conclude on that sad note. I mean it as no criticism of my brother solicitors. It is partly due to the world we live in, which is not a world I particularly like. Our duty in this House is to ensure that we pass a Bill that will result in the same quality of service for rich and poor alike.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) on his speech, which I wholly endorse.
  I declare an interest as having been a solicitor in the past and a barrister now. When the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West talks about service in firms of solicitors 20 years ago, I know what he means. It was what I was hinting at during the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), when I suggested that we were approaching the matter from the wrong end.
  We should consider how it feels to the man in the street —the chap who lives in the rural village who has a modest
  1494
  job, modest home and modest means. Several fates may befall him. His wife may walk out or he may get thrown out—it matters not because the principle is the same—and he will need matrimonial advice. Where will he go? Twenty years ago, when I practised as a solicitor in Sheffield and served the rural areas around, if that happened in Bakewell, Alfreton or another small village or town, a man could go to the local solicitor who had been in the village for 20, 30 or 40 years and knew the area and the problems. That solicitor, with the solicitor acting on the other side, could efficiently, and often at little cost, resolve the matrimonial problem.
  The Bill will go to the statute book in its present form because those who thought it through, on issues such as conveyancing, forgot a crucial point: rural practices die without a conveyancing element. In the old days conveyancing carried many a private practice through the winter, so to speak. It was the financial backbone of a practice. Rural practices did not charge people who came in to make wills. Charging people for wills at commercial rates such as those charged in the City would involve hundreds of pounds, and what pensioner could afford that? So the service was provided by the Law Society in the old days, and I hope that the society will continue to offer it.
  The person in the village who wanted to buy a house, to get divorced or to make a will had a local solicitor. We shall rue the day when we say that commercialism and efficiency should supersede the element of service in the Law Society of yesterday. I must tell the Attorney-General in the kindest possible way that if he allows himself and the Government to be railroaded down this route he will be making a grave mistake.
  Let us imagine that the man in the village runs over someone or is run over himself. Once again, he will need a lawyer, a specialist. In the old days he went to the rural solicitor, who sent him on, perhaps, to the town solicitor, who, in those days, knew about these matters— [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) does not know much about these matters, and I must tell him that we are discussing an issue that matters to the vast majority of people in this land.
  There comes a moment when a person needs good advice. In the old days he went to the local solicitor, in the village or the town. He could sort out what expertise was needed, which is where specialisation comes in. I concede that big London firms of solicitors have special expertise, but some of what we have heard recently in the Fayed case and others makes me wonder whether commercialism brings with it a price in terms of loss of integrity. We must be careful least money become a god in the profession. The moment that happens, professionalism will start to go.
  For many years I was a local solicitor and when a local person came to me for advice I looked round for the man or woman who was expert in the relevant field, and sent briefs to this or that counsel because he was independent and good. Counsel knew what they were doing; they survive only one mistake. Thereafter, the word goes out and they are finished.
  If the Bill is passed, if the cab rank rule goes and if the solicitor advocate who does not know these disciplines is allowed to pick and choose—as I pointed out in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)—the customer may not get the best possible advice.

  1495
  When I became a barrister I did not look on it as a change of profession. I saw it as another step in specialisation, because that is all the criminal Bar is—specialised advocates who know what a case is all about, who know the rules and who are efficient. That is the only way to survive. The profession is fiercely competive and we should not underrate it or write it off. On the contrary, we should remember its value and compare it with the American system. The Government should be careful: they are beginning to walk a dangerous road by allowing commercialism to override professionalism. Of course, we can resolve the problems of solicitor judges and so on, but let us always remember the man in the street. It is he whom the professions seek to serve and it is his interests that the House should be debating the Bill.
  The Bill includes many mistakes that must be rectified. If, at the end of the day, a Bill emerges that will serve the man in the street with the best possible professionalism we shall have done a good job. We must cast aside our prejudices and think with open minds if we are to serve that man.
  8.24 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: I had not imagined that I would find myself almost wholly in agreement with everything that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has just said.
  I cannot claim to be a layman, but it is 20 years since I practised as a solicitor. Before that, I practised for some years in the City, and I am still a member of the Law Society. I think that I am unique in being the only Member to have been opposed at a general election—in 1970—by an official anti-solicitor candidate, the redoubtable Mr. Carter, who was one of the first to do freelance conveyancing. He made some nice remarks about me in his election address, and he lost his deposit, so all was well in the end. It was a bit hard on me, because I did not do much conveyancing at the time.
  I want to speak first about advocacy and rights of audience. When I was practising, the last thing that my colleagues or I wanted was to appear in the High Court as advocates. We have plenty of other matters to occupy our time, and we wanted to use the best expertise we could find from the Bar. That was commonly true of the City of London and of other parts of the country; the system seemed to serve my clients and the interests of the country very well. That is why I wholly support the need to preserve an independent Bar. The last thing I want is that its members should become muddled up in the American style with attorneys here, there and everywhere.
  The maintenance of an independent Bar is essential, and the amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made to the Bill would make that possible, whereas the original Bill would not have. However, the Bar must recognise that, in Gallup polls—in so far as one ever pays attention to such polls —80 per cent. of people say that they want solicitors to have the opportunity to appear in court if necessary. It is ridiculous that solicitors cannot appear in certain instances which probably do not require the greatest expertise. That it why it is necessary to open up the rules and rights of audience.
  I shall not go over all the arguments about the cab rank rule again, except to say that it is obvious that the clause imposed in another place, which was a wrecking proposal
  1496
  by their Lordships, needs careful reconsideration. I think that it was clear from what the Attorney-General said that that will be rectified in Committee. I certainly hope that it will be.
  I want to say a word in favour of the Bar in relation to liability. The consumer associations are wrong to imagine that complete liability can be imposed on the Bar when it is carrying out its work. It is perfectly proper that it should be liable and not have immunity if it makes obvious errors, such as failing to turn up in court or acting in a grossly negligent way outside the court, but in court it is essential that the Bar enjoy immunity in the same way as witnesses and we in this House do.
  If we were to be sued and dragged into court all the time, what sort of debates would we have here? The same applies to the advocate in court; he must enjoy immunity if he is to give uninhibited service to his client. We do not need to copy the United States or any other country slavishly in this respect. There is a tendency to think far too much in transatlantic terms. I have always been wholly opposed to the contingency free racket that prevails in the United States. Far too many litigants are dragged into all the traumas of court by over-exuberant American Perry Masons or people like him. It would be appalling if that came about here.
  I am a little uneasy about the proposal for taking cases on spec, as it were. Anyone who is a Pickwick fan will recall how angry it made Mr. Pickwick that the odious firm of Dodson and Fogg was discovered taking the case of Mrs. Bardell on spec. A fat lot of good it did poor Mrs. Bardell, as it turned out. In Committee, we must be careful to ensure that the fees that a lawyer can charge for taking a case on spec should not bear a remarkable resemblance to a percentage of the damages obtained. I am not at all happy about that, but if we consider it carefully, we can probably reach a compromise. What we really need is not more but less litigation.
  Conveyancing is the aspect of the law with which the vast majority of people come into contact. As has been said, it is the most important thing in their lives. I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South about rural practices. The basis of small rural firms has been their conveyancing work. They have rendered a good service to their clients and have often provided other services free. Sometimes, even litigation has been subsidised by conveyancing work. That will disappear unless we are extremely careful.
  I am disturbed that banks and big financial institutions will take over conveyancing. I hope that careful checks will be placed on them. Several banks have been acquiring estate agents. The standards of the estate agents' profession are much lower than those of the Bar, of solicitors or of any other profession. Many examples of abuses and conflicts of interest have been brought to light which have been to the great disadvantage of clients and humble citizens. It would be sad if the service rendered by traditional solicitors in rural areas to humble people was lost in a mass of gigantic conglomerates which operate on a purely financial basis. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor's regulations in clause 39 must be considered carefully.
  In general, this is a good Bill, which moves in the right direction. I am surprised that the Opposition oppose it, and I cannot understand why. Much remains to be done in Committee. Most of the work will have to be done there. I ask the House, especially the Law Officers, to remember

  1497
  that cheapness is not always best. The old phrase "cheap and nasty" is as applicable today as when I learned it from my grandmother.
  In recent years, the trend has been to treat conveyancing as a purely commercial activity. It is nothing of the sort. We have likened the profession's activities to selling bananas and second-hand motor cars. They certainly are not. They are different. If we are to make the legal profession effective—the Bill will help—we must bear in mind the need to preserve and enhance the lawyer-client relationship of trust, fearless support and independence. That is how clients and society will get the justice and redress which they deserve.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I am a non-lawyer, so my remarks will be extremely brief. So far, most of the debate seems to have been something of a domestic dispute between the Bar Council and the Law Society about the relative merits of each profession. I do not want to enter into that, as I have no experience of it, but I wish to make one or two points about the Bill.
  It is proposed that most future litigation will be commenced within the county courts. I am worried how that will affect personal injury cases. I have some limited experience of them because I negotiated many settlements before I was elected to the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) told us of the problems of the county court system and my local law society has related to me the problems and workload of various county courts throughout the country. It is worried that the Bill's provisions will not be backed up with adequate resources to resolve the delays and problems.
  Again, it has been related to me that some litigants in personal injury cases may be disadvantaged by being required to commence their case in the county court rather than the High Court, especially if the case is serious or if the potential damages could be substantial. They will be disadvantaged by delays. Some negotiators and solicitors may be disadvantaged in negotiating a settlement, as the insurance company or defendant will know that the plaintiff has recourse only to the county court and not to the High Court, so has access to county court costs only. Some solicitors and negotiators believe that they will be disadvantaged in negotiating a high proportion of settlements because of that. Moreover, as all personal injury cases will fall on the county court system, it will be further clogged up, and there will be many more delays.
  Potential conflicts of interest could arise when financial institutions, such as building societies and insurance companies, rather than solicitors, undertake conveyancing. I am no particular fan of the solicitors' monopoly on conveyancing, but I am aware of the dangers for the ordinary man in the street of changing it. An estate agent may advise him to take on an endowment mortgage, which will not be in his best interests if in a few years he moves house, as it will not have had a chance to mature.
  The estate agent who provides the mortgage may recommend the in-house solicitor who can do the conveyancing at a reasonable or cut-price rate. The primary purpose of a building society or financial institution, which is to sell a financial package or a
  1498
  mortgage, could conflict with the best interests of the client. That is made worse when a tied practitioner is involved. As I understand it, he can give only best advice over the range of financial packages of products which he may sell.
  Individuals in such circumstances will face considerable pressure. If an individual can be provided with all the elements of his house purchase at one office, he is unlikely to seek advice elsewhere. The basic principle is independent advice. Many people who enter into the largest purchase that they will make in their lives may not get that advice.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) also mentioned estate agents. On 1 March 1990, the consumer magazine Which? in an investigation of estate agents showed that some buyers were handicapped because they chose not to use the financial services of the estate agent. For example, a lower offer was accepted because the bidder agreed to take an in-house mortgage and to use in-house financial services. It is essential that such people are given strictly independent advice, and I hope that that section will be widely debated in Committee.
  Clause 85 deals with the limitation period for the commencement of actions, on which I have been involved in some correspondence, again with regard to personal injury cases where the time limit appears to be being reduced to three years. Previously, a protective writ could be issued within three years, which would then allow an extra 12 months for a case to be prepared by solicitors. Proceedings will now have to be commenced within the three-year limitation period, apparently because the Government are seeking to reduce delay in such actions. That is unlikely to be the effect. Indeed, delays could be increased. Moreover, many people may be denied access to the law in cases of personal injury simply because they have particular problems in preparing their case.
  There are considerable arguments for extending the limitation period rather than reducing it—for example, in cases of serious injury, where the plaintiff may take a long time to recover; where the prognosis could not be established until some years after the accident, particularly in the case of a progressive industrial disease such as pneumoconiosis; or where knowledge of the claim or the right of action does not become apparent for some considerable time—for example, where a specialist engineer's report might reveal that there was cause of action where previously solicitors did not think that there was.
  Under the new circumstances, proceedings could be commenced hastily to protect a claim within the three-year limitation period, and shortly afterwards the practitioner could find that, because of a rapid improvement in the medical situation or a technical report, the cause of action was dramatically changed. In such a case the solicitor might be liable for costs for commencing a case too early or in the wrong court. Recently, a solicitor wrote to me saying:
  "Vast sums of money are wasted issuing writs most of which are never served against defendants who may perhaps be guilty but of whom many no doubt are completely innocent. It is an idle exercise: a scandalous waste of time and money which serves no useful purpose whatsoever."
  Reducing the limitation period will not solve the problem.
  The clause will deny many claimants access to the law. Many people have come to me three years after the date of

  1499
  their accident and I have had the unhappy duty of telling them that they have no case to pursue simply because they are out of time because of limitation periods of which they knew little if anything.
  The reduction in the limitation period will not reduce delay in cases; it will simply complicate matters. The civil justice review body said that the limitation period was to prevent defendants facing old cases, not to reduce delay. It did not say that proceedings should be commenced within that limitation period. That does not address the particular problem.
  I welcome the creation of a legal services ombudsman. I have been pursuing a case for more than two years, but within 30 seconds of walking into an interview with the Law Society I was informed that the legal practitioner with whom I was dealing was negligent, that there was nothing that could be done about it, and that the individual concerned would have to sue. Two years later, I am no further forward with that case, despite considerable correspondence and many meetings. I hope that the legal services ombudsman will address that problem.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I have been the legal adviser of the Institute of Legal Executives for about 15 years, but not once during this Second Reading debate have legal executives been mentioned. Yet all who practise, either at the Bar or as a solicitor, will know the debt that they owe to legal executives. I am glad to see the former Solicitor-General nodding in agreement. It is important to acknowledge and to recognise the work that they do. They prepare instructions for counsel, they brief counsel and they are experts in procedure, probate, litigation, advocacy and so on. The Bill provides a unique opportunity to give them the recognition that they have earned over the years.
  The Institute of Legal Executives was formed in 1960, but it owes its origins to the 1920s and the Managing Clerks Association and, in turn, to a former organisation which was founded in the late 19th century. Its record goes back almost 100 years. It has 20,000 members who take four general papers in law practice and four further papers. In 1989 no fewer than 15,000 members took the examinations. That gives some idea of the kind of work that legal executives do and the qualifications that they achieve.
  In education, training and discipline legal executives play an immensely important role in the service of the law. They are well qualified, and the lack of recognition that they have received is extraordinary when, under the Bill, a person who is in no way qualified in the law could end up as a member of the Bench—an extraordinary state of affairs.
  There are one or two clauses in which legal executives have a particular role to play. For example, clause 15 deals with whether a person should be granted a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation in relation to any court or proceedings. The criteria listed include

  "(a) whether he is qualified in accordance with the educational and training requirements appropriate to the court or proceedings;

  (b) whether he is a member of a professional or other body which—

  (i) has rules of conduct … governing the conduct of its members;

  (ii) has an effective mechanism for enforcing those rules of conduct; and

  1500

  (iii) is likely to enforce them".

  In all those respects, important as they are, the member of the Institute of Legal Executives would expect to be granted a right of audience and the right to conduct litigation. I sincerely trust that that will be implemented when the time comes in the context of the advisory committee.
  Clause 17 states that there will be 14 members of the advisory committee, excluding the chairman, making a total of 15, of which two must be practising barristers, two practising solicitors and two persons with experience in the teaching of the law. Eight other persons are to be appointed after consultation with such organisations as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate. There is an overwhelming case for including at least one representative of the Institute of Legal Executives in that list.
  As persons with experience in the teaching of the law are included, and as the institute has a crucial role in legal education, given its disciplinary code and the manner in which it runs its affairs, the time has come to give the institute the recognition that it deserves. That would be conferred not exclusively upon the institute, but upon its members. Such recognition would ensure also that they could enjoy the confidence that comes from knowing that they are recognised for performing the first-rate work that they have carried out in the public service for a very long time.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I, too, have no interests to declare, other than the fact that, in common with many right hon. and hon. Members, I deal from time to time with the consequences of legal cases and with solicitors and barristers.
  I welcome, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), the concept of a legal services ombudsman. Any right hon. or hon. Member who has dealt with a case against a firm of solicitors or a barrister knows of the appalling difficulties presented by the existing procedures of the Law Society and Bar Council. That is not to be critical of either body, but the existing arrangements and the relationships between both bodies, and between members of the legal profession and their clients, are so complex as to make it very difficult to secure a positive outcome. The result is, perhaps inevitably, always something of a fudge. My experience of the legal profession is that there is a need for an ombudsman, and I am pleased that the Bill makes provision for one.
  No right hon. or hon. Member has yet welcomed the extension of the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner. There has long been a need to clarify the relationship between the commissioner's department and that of the Lord Chancellor in investigating the actions of court officers in relation to administrative matters in general. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on addressing that issue. The provisions in the Bill mean that anyone who has waited for some time for money from the courts, for example, will be able to look for some redress from the ombudsman.
  My final and most important point concerns compensation for those who are bereaved as a result of an accident. I particularly have in mind correspondence that I have received from members of the Liverpool Law Society following their experiences in dealing with the aftermath of the Hillsborough tragedy 12 months ago. The

  1501
  Criminal Justice Act 1982 provides for compensation of up to £3,500 where the deceased person was under the age of 18 or was a husband or wife of someone over that age. The experience of the consortium of Liverpool solicitors dealing with the bereaved families of those killed at Hillsborough is that neither category deals with all cases satisfactorily. They point out that the age limit is not the best way of assessing the relationship between a young person and his family. The youngster who continues receiving education at college or university after the age of 18 is a classic example of someone who is still, to some extent, dependent on his or her parents. The solicitors argue that the age limit is too arbitrary a criterion and that each case should be considered on its merits.
  The 1982 Act does not provide for common law husbands or wives and thus reflect society as it is. The existing legislation creates much hardship and certainly a great deal of heartache in dealing with the aftermath of tragedies such as Hillsborough, Zeebrugge and King's Cross. The view of the Liverpool Law Society is that the amount of compensation should be increased. I suggest a figure such as the £10,000 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) in a private Member's Bill.
  The question of age as a key criterion for eligibility should also be re-examined, taking more generously into account the circumstances of the individuals concerned. Finally, in the context of compensation, common law partnerships should be recognised as being equally as valid as marriage. I hope that those important issues will be pursued in Committee. If such proposals are adopted, I am more likely to vote for the Bill at a later stage than I am tonight.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.20 pm. Four hon. Members who have been in their seats for a long time wish to speak, and I trust that they will share the remaining time available among themselves.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Having listened to much of the debate, I feel that I need some relief from the constant chorus from the legal profession as to its wonderful nature. Frankly, if one talks to the individual who has used a solicitor for conveyancing or in litigation, one begins to realise that belief in the high quality of the legal profession is not well-founded.
  Many believe that the legal profession is a delicate but perfect flower and that it may be damaged by market forces and the abolition of restrictive practices. That is a load of tosh and nonsense. I can think of no less efficient, less effective or slower profession than this country's legal profession. By and large, it would be difficult to find individuals having better intellectual abilities. However, they should be able to organise their affairs in a far better way. There is something very wrong with the ethos of the profession—which, despite the self-congratulatory facade that has been presented tonight, needs a thorough shake-up. I am not sure that the Bill goes far enough, but it goes some way to that end.
  1502
  It was incredible to hear right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House suggest that people buying houses should subsidise litigation by accident victims or divorcees. That is absolute bunkum. It was also claimed that solicitors give financial advice. I have bought five houses, but no solicitor ever gave me financial guidance, or said, "I know better than you, young man. Why not do this, that or the other?"
  It is nonsense to suggest that a primary function of solicitors is to protect their clients from buying the wrong property. In the rising market of last year, I should like to know how many solicitors asked their clients, "Do you realise that house prices can fall as well as rise, and that interest rates might increase?" It is also claimed that solicitors are sensitive to local conditions and know what their clients should do, but that is largely untrue. It is certainly not my experience with the legal profession. The preservation of the legal profession's privileges is not in the public interest. The more that we can do to open up the profession and introduce competition the better.
  I have been looking back at the amounts that I have paid for the conveyancing of my houses over the years. I first bought a house in 1969, and paid more in cash terms for a solicitor than I paid just the other year. I stopped using solicitors and first used the National Association of Home Owners, which was one way of getting round the solicitors' monopoly. Then I used an unlicensed conveyancer. Recently I have gone back to using a solicitor, simply because competition is such that solicitors offer a package that is too good to miss. The quality and the speed with which they get on with the job has gone up and up. The less money they charge, the less time they can take and the more efficient they must be. That must be good for the consumer—and we have heard so little about the consumer, other than the self-congratulatory remarks of the lawyers who are looking after them so well.
  The idea that we should put any restrictions on the way in which the market for conveyances has opened up, or on the one-stop shopping for people to go in, obtain a mortgage and financial advice and get their conveyancing done, should be strongly resisted. We need regulations that protect the consumer but do not protect the monopoly of the legal profession.
  Let me give a few examples. I bought a house in Huddersfield, along with 200 other people on our estate; after several years it turned out that the sewers had collapsed. Almost every solicitors' practice in Huddersfield, and in many surrounding towns, was involved in conveyancing houses on that estate. We are all told that if we use a solicitor we shall be protected against anything going wrong, but what did we find? All the solicitors had sent a Law Society form to the local council, asking whether the houses were connected to a public sewer. The local authority's answer was yes. What the form did not ask was whether it was the public sewer in the road immediately outside the house or the one two miles down the road. According to the Yorkshire water authority, the sewers in question were not adopted sewers.
  All 200 house owners went back to their solicitors and said that they had not looked after their interests. The solicitors said, "We sent the form saying that the houses were connected to a public sewer, but you did not ask whether the sewer was in the road outside the house. We had to find that out for you." The problem went on for years. Eventually, a senior solicitor in one of the firms in Huddersfield got together with all the authorities, banged

  1503
  their heads together and finally sorted the problem out. The local authority and the water authority put money into a kitty, and the householders did not have to shell out anything. The solicitors all denied liability. None of them wanted to know when we asked whether it was possible to sue a solicitor for not protecting his client properly. All the humbug about solicitors protecting people is so much hot air.
  Because the builder of that estate had gone bankrupt, I decided to go to an auction to buy the freehold reversions of the leasehold properties and put them out to tender so that people could buy them individually. I hoped to use only two solicitors—one for myself and one for the people wanting to buy. The solicitors said that all those wanting to buy could not use a single solicitor; they had to use separate solicitors. Two years later, not one freehold reversion had been conveyed to those people, because of the delay caused by solicitors saying that it was not worth their while to do the work. We gave them a three-month deadline to complete the work, but only half met it. I still own most of those freehold reversions today, and they provide me with a reasonable income.
  I congratulate whatever Government brought in the small claims procedure. As a small business man in Yorkshire, I found that solicitors were not interested in going to court on my behalf to chase up debts of £200 or £300. I was able to find out from a helpful solicitor's clerk that it was possible to use the small claims procedure on my own. Because I was self-employed, I could go in and litigate against people who did not pay their bills. In the 10 years for which I did that, I probably handled 200 or more cases, most of which were settled out of court.
  It is a simple procedure. When we went to an arbitrator, as long as there was a solicitor on the other side I knew that I had won, because they were never properly briefed by their clients and they never had enough information to fight the case properly. I lost only twice—to two little old men who were so befuddled that the arbitrator felt sympathetic towards them.
  The maximum limit of £2,000 to take someone to a small claims court is ridiculously low. It would go nowhere if a builder came to build an extension, for instance. The amount should be raised to £10,000, £20,000 or even higher. Why should not people use the county court procedure, which is so simple? The arbitration procedure is easy and it allows the arbitrator to ask proper questions. It is a good and informal way to sort out disputes. It is essential that directors of small limited companies have right of audience in a county court. Currently, unless they are self-employed they do not have that.
  Contingency fees are another way of shaking up the legal profession and of giving rights of access outside the legal aid system, and we should try to do that more and more. The freeing of rights of audience would help by providing competition. It would allow the winds of change to blow through the legal profession.
  I have rapidly read through my notes because time is short. I am glad that the Bill has been introduced because it helps the consumer. However, consumers are far from satisfied with the legal profession. I am referring in the main to solicitors, as I am glad to say that I have not had to go to litigation with barristers looking after my interests. I have heard scare stories from people who say that their barristers have been badly prepared, do not have a proper brief and therefore do not represent them properly. I urge the Government carefully to consider the
  1504
  possibility of a barrister being negligent—not that he had poor judgment or that he has not done the job as well as another barrister might have done it. It should be possible to prosecute for negligence. We must ensure that people can get lawyers to fight cases against fellow lawyers.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I wish to declare an interest as a former law centre solicitor, although I have not practised since the general election. I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the radical nature of the Lord Chancellor's proposals. I broadly support them and I congratulate him on his courage in walking through the minefield of the unseemly row between solicitors and barristers. Nothing becomes the profession less than the way in which they squeal as they fight to retain their diminishing monopolies.
  The proposals may founder not because of the self-interest of the profession, but because it lacks the resources necessary to carry them through. I welcome the extension of the rights of audience for solicitors. I was persuaded a long time ago of the necessity for a fused profession. It is wrong that members of the public must pay twice for representation. It is wrong that they must pay twice when their representatives switch halfway through the case. Solicitors are specialised in certain areas and it is right that they should be allowed to represent their clients in the highest courts of the land. I welcome the establishment of an advisory committee, which will have a lay majority.
  On the cab rank principle, I am convinced of the need for a principle that allows solicitors to take on any case that comes their way. That is especially important for legal aid work. However, I was a little confused by what the Attorney-General said about the sex discrimination and race relations legislation. I am not sure whether he meant to include his reference on the cab rank principle. I hope that when he replies to the debate he will say whether it is possible to use any of the exemptions in that legislation. For example, could a woman solicitor represent only women clients if that was what she wished? I should like the cab rank principle to be represented in a code of practice rather than in the Bill. I am a little concerned about the way that it has been advanced by the Bar to coincide with the fact that solicitors are to have an increase in their rights of audience.
  I welcome the changes during the last few years that have allowed people to use licensed conveyancers, and have resulted in a reduction in the cost of conveyancing. I have yet to meet many starving solicitors as a result of those changes. We should pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who was one of the first people to propose such legislation through his private Member's Bill. The law has been changed, but my fear is that it will go too far.
  I am not convinced that big financial institutions will be able to draw the line on conflicts of interest. I have been convinced by the arguments of my local law society, especially by Peter Smith, the honorary secretary of Leicestershire Law Society, who sent me a number of cuttings from local newspapers, and one from Today dated 26 February 1990. I do not wish to say that I believe everything that appears in Today but the article seems to highlight a particular case, in which the Halifax Building Society, acting as estate agent, was able to convince people

  1505
  of the need to accept a lower offer by saying that by accepting that offer it would be able to arrange a mortgage. Those hidden costs of borrowing will become a feature if conveyancing is extended to financial institutions using in-house solicitors.
  I like the idea of multi-disciplinary practices, but I think that they are unworkable in practice. They will threaten the independent and impartial service which solicitors now give. They will threaten client confidentiality and will make it more difficult for clients who are concerned about proceedings to pursue a complaint.
  I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will repeat, on the county courts. I and other hon. Members support the transfer of cases from the High Court to the county courts because we believe that that will enable them to be dealt with under the small claims procedure or other procedures at a local level far more effectively. However, I remind the Solicitor-General, who sat on the Committee that discussed the Children Bill, as I did, that when put into effect the Children Act 1989 will place a greater burden on the county court system. It has been remarked that the county court system makes a profit of £6 million a year. I do not see why some of that money cannot be used to lessen the present delays in the county court system and to make it easier for people to litigate before it. If the attention that we seek is not given to the county courts, the system will collapse.
  I should have liked to have seen something more in the Bill about training for solicitors, but perhaps that will come later. I should also have liked to have seen some reference to the creation of family courts. During the passage of the Children Act, the Solicitor-General promised that at some stage he would come back to the House and report on the rolling programme that he has instituted to establish family courts. I believe that the Bill provides an excellent vehicle for a family court system, and I hope that we shall have some assurances in his winding-up speech that he will accept that.
  I welcome the establishment of a legal ombudsman. I am concerned at the refusal of the Government and of some hon. Members to enable consumers, should they wish, to sue their advocates if they make a mess of cases. It is ludicrous that solicitors and barristers are immune from litigation if they do not conduct their cases properly.
  In the past 10 years, Parliament has legislated for rights which cannot be enforced because citizens cannot pay. The legal aid system is in severe crisis. The Attorney-General has just returned to the Chamber. He will recall that on 12 February, when I initiated a debate on legal services, I pointed out to him that I would not like justice to be cash-limited—I referred to it as justice-capping. I gave him some figures which he has not countermanded today. In the past 10 years, 15 million people have lost the right to legal aid, and last year 8 per cent. fewer people were granted legal aid than in the year before and there was the second largest drop in use of the scheme from 1,700,054 to 994,066. There has been a 3 per cent. drop in the granting of civil aid certificates. The Attorney-General himself used the figures when he spoke about the percentage decline and the number of people eligible for legal aid.
  1506
  At local authority level, law centres, advice centres, citizens advice bureaux and other agencies that provide necessary advice for local people are being squeezed.
  Our system of justice does not exist merely to feed barristers and solicitors or to provide employment for court clerks. The courts and the professions exist to enable ordinary people to obtain justice. Justice must never be seen to be cost-effective, but it must be administered effectively. There is still genuine anger that the law is expensive both in time and money, inaccessible, favours the privileged, conducts itself in jargon, supports monopolies, is remote and is conducted by lawyers for lawyers. Our duty as legislators is to put an end to those excesses. That will not happen with this Bill, but given good will in Committee we may set out on the right road. I warn the House at this early stage that without the proper resources the journey will not even begin.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: I decline to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in his doom-laden and over-lugubrious approach to the Bill. I want every bit as much as he does to maintain an independent and strong Bar, which is the key to the Government's intention of providing more choice to the litigant. Without a strong and independent Bar, the litigant's choice will be diminished. With it, it will be enhanced.
  Where I differ from the diagnosis of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton is that I believe that the Bar is robust enough to stand up to the extra measure of competition that the Bill will bring. Of all the professions, the Bar is probably the most competitive. There is competition to get good pupillages, competition to get into good sets of chambers, competition between sets of chambers and competition between members of chambers. The Bar is a robust profession and is well able to take care of itself.
  However, I have one anxiety that is shared by many fellow barristers. It relates to the recruiting activities of the major City firms of solicitors. They are anxious to recruit the brightest and the best from the Bar, and they have deep pockets with which to do so. Indeed, they are already doing so to a considerable extent. When the Bill is enacted they will be in a position to recruit from the Bar in-house lawyers who will still be able to continue to practise in the High Court and the principal appellate courts. It will be more tempting for members of the Bar to leave and to join those firms.
  That is a fear with some substance, but the approach of many at the Bar is too pessimistic. Although there are certainly advantages in being an in-house lawyer, there are also disadvantages and frustrations. The Bar will be able to surmount that competition and will continue to attract many of the best and brightest. I also foresee that many people who leave the Bar and join the large City firms as in-house lawyers will in time return to the Bar as independent practitioners.
  A further anxiety about the Bill relates to contingency fees. It is crucial to the effective and efficient administration of justice that there is absolute trust between the judge and the advocate appearing before him or her. A barrister has a duty to the court which may conflict with the interests of his client. He has a duty to draw the judge's attention to cases that go against the

  1507
  argument being put forward. There is a duty to disclose documents that are unhelpful to the case. There is also a duty not to harass unduly or unfairly the witness who is being cross-examined.
  My main anxiety about the contingency fees—I am glad that we are adopting the Scottish rather than the American system—is that, because the barrister's financial advantage is caught up to a much greater extent with the outcome of the case, there will be greater pressures brought to bear on our current high professional standards.
  I believe that the Bar will be able to withstand those pressures, as will our friends the solicitor advocates who will be joining us before the High Court, the Court of Appeal and other appellate courts, but there are some risks in the Bill. Good reforming measures often carry risks. On the whole, the Bill is a good one and I commend it to the House.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: We have had a fair, critical and open-minded debate. There has been no difference about the Bill between the two sides of the House. The debate has not been dominated entirely by the legal profession, and there has been no unanimity between Labour and Conservative Members. In all, we have had a good, stimulating debate and the Bill has had a healthy start before it enters Committee.
  The debate vindicates the Opposition's decision not to vote against Second Reading tonight. We support many parts of the Bill, but it was right for us to table a reasoned amendment, for which we will ask the House to vote. Our amendment fills out the frame for the Bill and provides performance standards by which we shall measure the way in which the Government provide both for the reform of the legal profession and for the access to law for people throughout the country.
  The Bill cannot be described as having a single theme. On the one hand, it deregulates part of the profession, and on the other it introduces at least five quangos. It is a Bill for the English courts and the English legal profession.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: And for the Welsh.
  Mr. Fraser: And for the Welsh—I beg the hon. and learned hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is a Bill for the English and Welsh legal professions, and it was introduced by a Scots lawyer. This must be the first occasion on which legislation, in its early stages at any rate, has led to threatened industrial action by the judges and the threatened resignation of the Attorney-General.
  With one hand, the Bill gives rights and opportunities for solicitors to become judges or have rights of audience in the higher courts, yet it almost takes those rights away with the other hand. In Committee we will want to consider the possibility of a single designated judge exercising a right of veto over the extension of the rights of audience. We want to get that balance right when we examine that matter in Committee.
  The Bill reforms the courts system, but it does absolutely nothing about the obscurities surrounding the selection, training and appointments to the judiciary—and by judiciary I mean both the High Court and the magistrates bench. In the light of what the Attorney-General said in his opening remarks about equal
  1508
  opportunity and avoiding discrimination, it is even more important that we should open up that area of the legal profession to reform as well.
  As I have said, we will not vote against Second Reading tonight, because there is a great deal in the Bill that we can support. However, we would have had a better Bill and the progress of legal reform and the reform of the courts would have been assisted if we had had such a debate a year ago, when the Government produced their Green Paper and then their White Paper. The quality of today's debate sustains the argument that this is the kind of subject on which the House should be consulted at a much earlier stage and on which we could have made a constructive non-party contribution to the development of policy. It is a pity that the House has come to the matter so late in the day.
  What should be our attitude to the reform of the legal profession and the provision of services? I declare an interest, in that I am a lawyer. From time to time, we are not popular either as lawyers or as Members of Parliament, even among our colleagues until—as all hon. Members will be aware—someone actually wants advice. One is reasonably popular on those occasions, but one is not always universally popular at other times.
  There is great danger in confusing qualifications with monopoly. Competition is not distorted by those who offer services being trained, having high standards and being competent to practise—indeed, rather the reverse. Competition is helped by having a common set of specifications and qualifications. Competition is distorted only when access to a qualification is not open to all, or when a qualification provides restricted entry to doing something for which it is not necessary to have the qualification at all, or when anti-competitive behaviour is imposed as a condition of holding the qualification—for instance, prohibitions on advertising and price display. There would have been less criticism of the professions if the Law Society and the Bar had revised their rules, particularly in respect of advertising and making information known about services provided, much earlier.
  The trend of consumer protection has been in favour of tests of competence—for instance, the control of conduct of estate agents, house builders, insurance brokers, investment business, doctors, dentists, nurses, teachers and so on. It would be short-sighted if we were to reverse that process for lawyers, because their practice becomes more complicated all the time and demands more, not less, training and more qualifications. We meet the needs of the consumer if we make sure that people are properly qualified. We shall certainly want an even playing field and proper regulation when we deal with these matters in Committee.
  Although protection of the consumer is important, it is not the only consideration when it comes to regulating legal services. There must also be an ethical commitment to an ideal of truth, trust and fairness, even if the lawyer suffers in the short term by obeying it. If the professional ethic is lost, in the long run the consumer will lose as well.
  There are two classic examples, one of which will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). One occurs when a defence lawyer is asked to plead innocence of a crime to which the defendant has unambiguously confessed to the lawyer. Lawyers are constantly asked, "How can you defend somebody who has told you that he has done the crime?" Of course he cannot. The second example is not the defence lawyer but

  1509
  the prosecuting lawyer who suppresses evidence which, if made available to the defence, would lead to the acquittal of the defendant. Those are two examples in which the duty of the lawyer, whether to the client or to the state, must override the instructions that are given to him by the client. If he otherwise overcomes his professional scruples, he is in effect taking money to tell lies knowingly or to suppress the truth from the court or from his colleagues.
  I mention those points not because I think that lawyers are particularly self-righteous or better than other professions. I do not think that they are. Many professions have an ethic. It is not right to say that, as a member of the legal profession, one treats these matters on a higher plane than people in other professions. I mention those points to underline the fact that one simply cannot have purely competitive, market, money-making considerations as the only basis for this legislation.
  We do not want a Bill that will create injustice. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) mentioned that clause 85 will create a real injustice. At the moment, everybody knows that, if they have a claim for personal injury, with some exceptions the writ must be issued within three years. That is a certain period and it allows for a solicitor to have three months afterwards within which to serve the proceedings. Many people will suffer major injustice if clause 85 remains as drafted. When matters go to court, there will be arguments about whether service of the proceedings took place.
  There are many examples. A company may change its registered offices and writs may be sent to the wrong place. There is a great possibility of creating uncertainty and injustice if clause 85 remains in the Bill. We shall return to that point in Committee.
  The Bill gives new rights to conduct legal services, such as probate and conveyancing and, to a small extent, litigation. In Committee, we shall try to ensure that the Bill works even-handedly between practitioners, and follows the principle that independence of advice to the client should be preserved. There are too many temptations and imperfections for this matter to be left to market forces. My two examples have already been touched on. The first relates to probate. We do not oppose, the Law Society does not oppose and no one in the profession opposes in principle the extension of the ability of non-lawyers to take probate cases. If a bank or an insurance company has been appointed as an executor, it is right that it should be allowed to get probate itself, provided it is properly qualified to do so. However, at the moment, solicitors are under an external supervision in terms of the amount of money that they can charge for probate cases and it is well known that banks and insurance companies charge about three times as much for carrying out probate services.
  In another place, the Government said that that matter should be left to the market, but we must remember whom we are talking about and the people who pay that three-times-higher bill, should that occur. First, those concerned will not be the executors of the will. They will not be in charge of the administration of the assets of the estate. Secondly, the original customer is dead—otherwise the will would not go to probate. Thirdly, those involved may well be widows or children who do not have any legal capacity. One cannot say that that class of consumer—on
  1510
  the one hand, the dead consumer and, on the other hand, the vulnerable consumer, who is perhaps a minor—will be properly protected by the operation of market forces. Although I do not oppose the provision in principle, there must be an appeal to a third-party authority about the level of charging because the scale of charges might have been fixed long after the testator made the will or even after the will has been probated.
  My second example relates to conveyancing. Again, there is no opposition in principle, because Labour Members have been instrumental in widening the choice of conveyancing services, while maintaining standards of competence and behaviour. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was not called to speak in the debate. If financial institutions carry out the conveyancing, the question that arises is whether they will perform that work primarily for the consumer's benefit or for their own. The problem is whether they will undertake what is known in other trades as "cherry picking"—that is, taking those parts of the work that are attractive and remunerative and leaving those that are unremunerative.
  I shall summarise my point by considering the amounts of money involved in a conveyancing transaction. Let us assume that a house is sold for £100,000 and, for the sake of argument, that the conveyancing charges will be £500. In the same transaction, the commission for the sale of the house will be £2,000—about four times higher than the conveyancing fees. I repeat that we are talking about a financial institution that may earn £2,000 in commission for the sale of the property as opposed to about £500 in legal and conveyancing fees.
  However, we must then add another factor. Let us assume that the property is sold on a mortgage of £60,000 backed by an endowment policy. The commission on that endowment policy might be worth about £1,000. Therefore, on the one hand, there is the consideration of making £3,000 in commission on the sale and the endowment and £500 for the so-called "independent" advice that is being given to the person undertaking the conveyance. Under those circumstances, one must consider whether, unless there are countervailing rules, completely independent advice will be given to the person undertaking the conveyance.
  There is a simple way out of that, especially in relation to the endowment. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) has pointed out, it is reckoned that about £680 million per year is lost by people surrendering endowment policies that they would otherwise have been well advised to maintain. The answer probably lies in the Lord Chancellor exercising his powers to compel the financial institutions to disclose the commission that they receive as a result of the sale of an endowment policy. Solicitors have to do that now. They must not only disclose the amount but account for it to the customer. There must be an even playing field if we are to ensure that the first consideration, which is independent advice, is achieved and that there is fair competition between the professions.
  The deficiencies in the Government's approach to these matters form the subject of our reasoned amendment. The first deficiency is the failure to deal with the inadequacy of legal aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) gave some telling figures. The truth of the matter is that, although expenditure on legal aid has increased during the past 10 years, in the past two or three

  1511
  years, the number of people who obtained legal aid advice and assistance has fallen off. More worryingly, there is now a falling off in the number of firms undertaking legal aid work. That has never happened before. The reason why it is happening is that the Government have geared the reward to people undertaking legal aid—both solicitors and barristers—at a figure well below the real costs and the inflation rate for conducting legal work.
  The reward this year is about 7 per cent., compared with a real rate of inflation in legal costs and the costs of running a legal practice or barrister's practice of about 12 per cent. That has had a cumulative effect over the past few years. The consequence is that people are increasingly getting out of legal aid work. If we carry on giving third-class rates of reward to people who do legal aid work, we shall at least finish up with a second-class practice. That is not right. Access to the law and quality of representation should be commensurate with the case. The way in which legal aid has been drifting is militating against that.
  The second deficiency in the Bill relates to the conduct of county courts. There was some attraction in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Matins) that there should be competition between one county court and another. Indeed, there is some such competition. In some county courts, people submit voluntarily to their jurisdiction because they know that in court X an application under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 will be dealt with in seven days, whereas in court Y it will be dealt with in about six weeks or two months. There should perhaps be some competition between one county court and another.
  The Government should think about a second practical matter—the difficulty of a litigant coming up against the same judge time and time again. In the High Court, at least there is the advantage that, unless one is unlucky, one will not get the same judge twice. Especially in country jurisdictions, there is often the possibility that, if either the advocate or litigant upsets the judge on one occasion, they will upset him on every subsequent occasion. That is a perfectly serious point. If we are to push more work down to the county courts, the judges should move around as well as the litigants.
  Our greatest fear is that, on present performance, the Government are delegating work to a pretty ramshackle structure. I have just looked through a brief list of claims of maladministration against county court staff. It makes horrific reading. At Braintree county court, the list was overloaded and a case was adjourned. The same thing happened at Bromley county court and at Edmonton county court. At Exeter county court, the judge did not turn up. The registrar did not turn up at another county court. Cases have been incorrectly listed for a registrar —and so on.
  Anyone who has any passing aquaintance with the operation of the county courts will be deeply worried about the standard of performance and the possibility of loading a huge amount of work on to a structure that cannot cope with the business now. The Attorney-General said that some staff would be released because the county courts will no longer operate payments systems. I am not sure that that change will operate to the advantage of some smaller litigants, who will say that they paid their money directly to the plaintiff. The bailiff will come in and find no independent record of whether money has been paid or not.
  1512
  Our last criticism is that nothing in the Bill modernises except in the slightest detail, or makes transparent our system of recruiting, training and selecting the judiciary, or puts into statute any criteria for that exercise. That is in stark contrast to a Bill that sets out the criteria for the duties of the advisory committee.
  The way in which judges and magistrates are selected or permitted to apply for the bench should be open and transparent and placed outside the control of political appointments. They should be the subject of the Judicial Appointments Group and take into consideration the elimination of prejudice or operation of discrimination through sex or race. As far as possible, the judges should reflect the composition of the community upon which they sit in judgment. These should not be secret matters, subject to political control. We were accused of trying to ensure political control of the appointment of judges, but we want to see that removed entirely from the political arena. I can think of one case in which the Prime Minister operated a political veto in respect of a judge's appointment.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, this is an enabling Bill, the final shape of which is not known. In our reasoned amendment, we try to sketch in a framework in which the change will take place and provide, in the course of our Committee discussions, for a comprehensive legal service in which the quality of and access to representation before the courts and tribunals are not dependent on wealth, privilege or advantage, but provide equal access to the law throughout the country. The Bill will not do that, which is why we have tabled our amendment. If our amendment is not passed, we shall try to achieve those goals in Committee.
  9.42 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): This has been an interesting and valuable debate with varied contributions from both sides of the House. If we had shut our eyes it would often have been difficult to know from which party or interest any particular contribution had come.
  The Bill tackles and sets out to resolve major issues which have required attention for many years. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made a number of detailed comments which I look forward to taking up, considering and discussing further in Committee. The hon. Gentleman has a great deal of knowledge, having practised as a solicitor in London, and it has been a pleasure to work with him on previous Committees.
  The comments made in the debate covered the key topics in the Bill. First, there is the civil justice review, which the Bill implements and which provides the first major structural reform of our system of civil justice since the judicature Acts of 1873. That aspect has been generally welcomed. The only point made about it was that it required adequate resourcing. That point has been firmly made by the Lord Chancellor and, in so far as it forms part of the criticisms underlying the Opposition's reasoned amendment, I shall return to it in detail later.
  The second key aspect is the creation of a framework —I emphasise that word—to enable the structure of the legal profession to develop through a process of evolutionary change. That has been welcomed, but it was also questioned by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who asked how it would work in the Bill. It is

  1513
  important to emphasise that the Bill creates not the result, but the framework for producing the result. It will initially be a matter for the profession, or parts of the profession, or for other professions, to come forward with proposals which will be examined by the advisory committee under clauses 15 and 16, by the Lord Chancellor and by the judiciary, through the four senior designated judges. Their combined wisdom will come forward and their combined agreement will be necessary before changes can be made.
  It must be recognised that the Bill follows years of difficulty, particularly between the two parts of the legal profession—barristers and solicitors—which has been to some extent reflected in the carefully considered arguments put forward from either side of the debate. It was evident that the arguments were advanced not from either side of the Chamber but from the two points of view. I think of the eloquent arguments on behalf of solicitors advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and the eloquent arguments on behalf of barristers put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). All those arguments were reflected in the responses of barristers and judges to the Green Papers—the "quality of justice"—and they will have to be combed through and evaluated by the professionals themselves in the first instance to see what kind of structure they come up with. It will then come to the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary for approval, or the lack of it, as the case may be. In that way, what has often been an agonising debate, which has properly been passionately discussed by those on both sides, should find a way of making progress, and a system which had not shown much capability of gentle evolution should find a way of effecting evolutionary change.
  The third key point in the debate concerned the creation of a framework within which to encourage wider competition in conveyancing and probate services. The other sensible reforms relating to the appointment of the judiciary, allowing solicitors to make progress up the judiciary, judicial pensions, the power of the Law Society to regulate solicitors, and the extension of the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to cover court staff were also mentioned. The extension of the commissioner's powers was widely welcomed, not least by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), one of the laymen who played a significant part in the debate—with his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce).
  In its major aspects, the Bill tackles problems that have been the subject of serious debate for as long as I have been in Parliament—almost 11 years—and for which there has been a growing need for resolution for all the 25 years I have been in practice as a barrister.
  Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I was taken aback to learn that the Opposition appeared to be seeking to oppose the Bill as a matter of principle, but it has become clear from the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and of the hon. Member for Norwood that the Opposition do not oppose the Bill itself
  1514
  but are putting down a marker with regard to two aspects of it—resources for the county court, and legal aid—by means of their reasoned amendment.
  First, I wish to rebut as strongly as I can the comment by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon that legal aid is withering on the vine. That is nonsense. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party left office, legal aid was being funded to the tune of £119 million per year. It is funded now at about £589 million—almost a fivefold increase in value and about 150 per cent. over and above inflation. That can hardly be described as withering on the vine. Nor do I refer to monetary value alone. The aspects of legal aid which are important to this Bill include the fact that the number of civil legal aid certificates has increased from 190,000 10 years ago to 259,000 today—an increase of about 30 per cent. That is a picture of steady growth.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon and the hon. Member for Norwood criticised the Lord Chancellor because he has set in train a review of legal aid, coupled with the careful administrative review that the Legal Aid Board is carrying out, and because he is seeking how best to target the money on legal aid. That is not a matter for criticism. It is a matter of good government. I do not know what impression the Opposition wish to give the country about legal aid. I have peeped into their policy review to see what they say. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for St. Helens, South scowling. He would no doubt wish nobody to look into that document and probably shrinks from looking at it himself. It states:
  "Over time and as resources become available we intend consistently to improve access to legal aid."
  That is the kind of general statement which will thrill everyone in Knowsley.
  The realistic step to take is exactly that which the Lord Chancellor is taking—to look carefully at where best to deploy the money. As he has said, he will not wait three years to come forward with sensible proposals—he will introduce them as and when his scrutiny throws them up. I remind the House that as recently as 9 April the reforms that the Lord Chancellor announced in November came into effect. Under those reforms, children's means are to be assessed separately from those of their parents, pensioners dependent on a small capital nest egg will get additional protection and all litigants in personal injury cases will have the benefit of an increase in the upper limit. That will help many people to gain better access to legal aid.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the Solicitor-General give way?
  The Solicitor-General: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have several points to answer and not much time in which to do so.
  The Opposition have argued the need for adequate resources for the county courts. The Lord Chancellor has recognised that there have been problems in the county courts. The hon. Member for Norwood scratched around his notes to pull together some rather disparate problems from individual county courts. I do not deny that those problems exist or that there may be more, but the Government are tackling them. Expenditure is being increased. The Lord Chancellor has made it clear that the civil justice reforms will come in stages and not before the courts are ready.
  The number of circuit judges has increased steadily from 353 five years ago to 408 now. That is a significant

  1515
  increase. As a result of the last autumn statement, the number of staff in post is to increase by 350 this year to carry out the administrative work of the courts. This year there are to be up to an additional 100 staff for the civil justice review and the Children Bill, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). The need to handle suitor's cash will be ended. It may lead to one or two difficulties, but it is a sensible way to relieve county court staff of a job which plantiffs and defendants can do better themselves. That will release some 350 staff for other work. The summons production centre at Northampton is imaginative thinking. Large users of the county court can issue summonses, which some do in large quantities, highly efficiently. That will result in a saving of 50 staff.
  Under present administrative procedures some 1,500 trials a year come down from the High Court to the county court and are handled by 50 trial centres. In my early days in the county court, if a case went over more than one day, one would stand back and go away for three to five weeks. Cases dribbled on for months. That will not happen. An additional 25 trial centres are in the pipeline. That is the proper and, dare I say it, the Conservative way to manage the system, to get it working better so as to meet the needs of the day.
  I want to try to answer one or two points raised in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) spoke as a layman, and laymen are to play an important part in the advisory committee where they are to have a majority. It is in the interests of the public and users of legal services that the reforms are rightly being brought forward. My right hon. Friend made three points about probate, mortgages and tied practitioners. The answer to his point on probate is that at the moment there are no provisions for the administration of estates after grant of probate because there are none in the present law. The Government have improved the position by introducing a complaint system to cover such matters, which my right hon. Friend will find in clauses 46 and 47. Clause 39 enables the Lord Chancellor, if appropriate, to make regulations on accounting for commissions. The financial services regime deals with tied practitioners, but we shall have an opportunity in Committee to consider how that works in practice in relation to the providers of mortgages.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) asked why we do not let any case go to the High Court. Here again it is a question of proper management of resources. There will no longer be any upper limit in the county court. If one let any case go to the High Court, the great temptation for the client would be to say that his was a terribly important case and that if it could go to the High Court it should. That would be a wasteful use of resources.
  My hon. Friend also asked about employed lawyers and why they should not have to abide by the cab rank rule. It is impractical to think that an employed lawyer carrying out work for his employer in a particular area can in any realistic sense hold himself open to all comers. He would become an employed solicitor. We must hold that position open.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central was worried about wasting money on issuing writs. I understand the point because I was involved in that debate long before I was a member of the Government. There has always been a problem about whether to clamp down on the length of
  1516
  time available in which to start proceedings and get them up and running or whether to get them moving. There has been a consistent complaint that cases have hung around for three years, the writ is then issued and the next year has dribbled by. To answer a point made by the hon. Member for Norwood, that period will come down to four months. Writs will have to be issued and served and proceedings got under way. After several years of complaints, we believe that that will be a wise approach, but we can discuss that further in Committee.
  The Bill lays the ground for major reforms to our system of civil justice. It opens the way to a balanced, carefully thought out evolutionary development of our legal profession. It provides a structure for properly controlled development of competition in conveyancing. After years of debate and not a little anguish, the Bill will come to be seen as a landmark in the sensible, evolutionary Conservative approach to reform and I commend it to the
  House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 203.

  Division No. 162]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Allen, Graham

  Henderson, Doug

  Anderson, Donald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Beckett, Margaret

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Leighton, Ron

  Boateng, Paul

  Lewis, Terry

  Boyes, Roland

  Livingstone, Ken

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Buchan, Norman

  McAllion, John

  Buckley, George J.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Callaghan, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  McFall, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McLeish, Henry

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Madden, Max

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Clelland, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Meale, Alan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Michael, Alun

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cryer, Bob

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cummings, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mullin, Chris

  Darling, Alistair

  Nellist, Dave

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dixon, Don

  Patchett, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Pike, Peter L.

  Doran, Frank

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Prescott, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Radice, Giles

  Eadie, Alexander

  Redmond, Martin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Reid, Dr John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Robertson, George

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

  Rogers, Allan

  Fisher, Mark

  Rooker, Jeff

  Flynn, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Ruddock, Joan

  Foster, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fraser, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  George, Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hardy, Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  1517

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Amess, David

  Durant, Tony

  Amos, Alan

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arbuthnot, James

  Eggar, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Evennett, David

  Ashby, David

  Favell, Tony

  Atkins, Robert

  Fearn, Ronald

  Atkinson, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baldry, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Beggs, Roy

  Forman, Nigel

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Franks, Cecil

  Benyon, W.

  Freeman, Roger

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bowis, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bright, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

  Gow, Ian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gregory, Conal

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter Portsmouth N)

  Butterfill, John

  Grist, Ian

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Ground, Patrick

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cash, William

  Hampson, Dr keith

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chope, Christopher

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hayward, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hind, Kenneth

  Couchman, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'Wd)

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

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howells, Geraint

  Day, Stephen

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  1518

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Irvine, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Janman, Tim

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Jessel, Toby

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Shersby, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Key, Robert

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Kilfedder, James

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Squire, Robin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Knapman, Roger

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stern, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Summerson, Hugo

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Taylor, Matthew (Truto)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Viggers, Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Waller, Gary

  Mudd, David

  Ward, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Watts, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wells, Bowen

  Norris, Steve

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wilkinson, John

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Price, Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Redwood, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any sums required by the Lord Chancellor for the payment of grants under the Act to the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board;

  (ii) any other expenses incurred by the Lord Chancellor under the Act; and

  (iii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment;

  (b) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be paid out of that Fund under any other enactment. —[Mr. Lilley.]

  10.12 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is, perhaps, entirely appropriate that a non-lawyer should speak on this Bill via the money resolution, because the Bill has been —[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members who are not remaining for this debate please leave the Chamber quietly?
  Mr. Mitchell: I have never seen so many lawyers working so hard for so little and at such length, which is why I am speaking on the money resolution. The Bill has provoked a protracted matrimonial dispute between the Law Society and the Bar Council. I am concerned with the consumers' point of view, which arises under the money resolution because its provisions do not cover the Lord Chancellor's increased expenditure and expenditure under related legislation, such as the extension of the ombudsman role.
  The real problem of the inadequate provision of legal services is financial. The system seriously fails the people —not the wealthy who can always afford to pay for legal services, but the mass of the people who need the backing of the law in employment rights, housing matters, domestic and matrimonial disputes and so on.
  All those issues are fairly inexpensive and of no great interest to the legal profession because there is little reward in them. However, they require the adequate provision of services so that people can have their rights protected. That is where both the money resolution and the Bill fall down. The provisions of the money resolution are inadequate to extend the services that we want to those in society who are currently badly served by the administration of justice. They require a department—a Ministry of Justice—answerable in the Chamber. They require a public defender service providing effective protection for the mass of the people. They require a legal services commission. They require proper training, in particular for judges, which is covered in the money resolution. I do not know why we have not yet established a YTS-type training scheme for judges. Under our system we have some of the worst-trained judges in the world.
  1520
  Certainly we have nothing like the provision for training of judges as exists in France. Finally, they require the type of injury compensation scheme that exists in New Zealand.
  Instead, the Lord Chancellor has gone for the market solution to try to get more work out of the system for less money. He has gone for a money resolution that covers less ground. A market solution—increased competition —makes fewer demands on the public purse and gets more work out of the system. I have no objection to that as a principle, but it does not cover enough ground. The money resolution is not as extensive as I would have wanted it to be.
  I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on the Bill, first for having begun progress after the logjam which built up under his predecessors and secondly for the ingenious solutions that he has gone in for. However, there are other areas in which we could serve the consumer better without making substantial demands on the money resolution—for instance, by making barristers and lawyer advocates in the higher court liable in law for incompetence, negligence and inadequacy. Why should they be exempt from legal action of that nature? No one else has that protection. We need to bring them into the scope of negligence cases and they should be taken to court for inadequacy in their work.
  The money resolution covers the extra work of judges, but the extra work that falls on them in respect of their control over access to representation in higher courts is not something that they should have to do in any case.
  Why should judges, who made their views on solicitor representation in higher courts absolutely clear, and who are defending the vested interests of barristers in this matter, have power over that area? Why not allow solicitors to operate in the higher courts on the same basis as we now allow lay people to operate in the county courts? It could be as simple as that. It would not need the expenditure in the money resolution if we opted for that more straightforward solution and then let the consumer choose whose services he wanted to represent him.
  We could also get a wider range of representation by providing that the solicitor who prepared the case could present it in the court. That could be done without extra expenditure, thus widening the range of choice. If we maintain the ban on those who prepare cases representing them in court we are imposing a rule that does not apply in the lower courts, and it is wholly unnecessary.
  We could have direct access to barristers. I am alarmed to find that the Bar Council has taken preliminary steps to discipline barristers who work in solicitors' firms. Why can we not establish a principle of direct access to barristers?
  The cab rank principle was put into the Bill by Lord Alexander to restrict competition among solicitors in the higher courts or, as the Legal Action Group put it, "to make mischief". Really it is there as a restraint on competition, because it is difficult for solicitors to comply with that ruling. I shall quote briefly from the Legal Action Group's current report:
  "The Bar's own cab-rank rule does not bear too much investigation. Only from last month has this vaunted bulwark of the country's civil liberties actually required a barrister to act in a legally aided case. The exceptions to the general principle remain so wide that any barrister could devise a justification for refusing almost any particular case or general class of work."
  The editorial concludes that the real issue is to ensure that
  "every client should have access to a solicitor, not that every solicitor must act in every case."

  1521
  The money resolution covers the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. I am concerned that the board will effectively cover only the work of banks and building societies. There is a different rule-making system through the Law Society for solicitors and a different system again through the Council for Licensed Conveyancers for licensed conveyancing. As a result of the separation of powers, there will be three rule-makers. It will be difficult to achieve a level playing field and a system that ensures that each operates under the same rules and competes on the same basis. The way that the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board will operate will be inadequate.
  The money resolution will cause extra expenditure for courts. The Government's views on the proposals of the civil justice review have not been clarified.
  The Bill makes some welcome changes, particularly in respect of debts. I welcome them because the procedures have been too automatic and abrupt and the consumer has had too little power in them. However, I am not sure how it will work in practice. The civil justice review made 91 recommendations. We need to know what the Government's response will be before we can adequately judge how much expenditure will be involved and what regulations will follow to implement the provisions of the Bill. When will the Government give their considered response to those 91 recommendations, many of which affect expenditure under the money resolution? The problem of debt will increase the more the current deflation bites. To know how those procedures will operate, we must be aware of the Government's position.
  The legal services ombudsman will have an expanded role, but we are not sure how he will function. He needs to have power to deal with shoddy and inadequate work and negligence. There is a provision in the Bill that all procedures must be exhausted before there is recourse to the ombudsman, whose expenditure is covered by the money resolution. The previous procedures under the Solicitors Complaints Bureau were not satisfactory because it had no power to award compensation. Will it be given power to do so and will the Government table an amendment to enable that, because it will have an effect on the number of cases that come before the legal services ombudsman?
  The money resolution is wide-ranging, which is why this has been a rather more wide-ranging speech than it would have been. It embraces the least adequate part of the Bill. The Bill is good because it enhances competition and therefore enhances the drive of legal services to serve the consumer. But that is not enough, and we still need wider provisions and the correction of various parts of the Bill, which I hope will be made in Committee. We want to establish the basic principle that the legal system is a service industry working to serve the people, particularly the consumer of legal services, rather than the self-interest of those who operate it.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for this opportunity at the end of our main debate to speak to the money resolution. I suppose that the House should be grateful that we have not been pressed for time today in debating the Bill. Indeed, we could have examined the
  1522
  statement made earlier by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in much more detail and every hon. Member who wanted to speak on Second Reading of the Bill could still have done so. It is gratifying to know that those of us who were concerned that there should be proper examination of the statement were proved right. In view of the Government's track record of incompetence and shambolic action in the past week, it behoves the House on every available opportunity to examine what the Government are doing. That is what we are doing on this money resolution.
  I do not cavil at the Attorney-General's claim that there is a need for speedier hearings of cases in civil courts. The Government say that that can be achieved by transferring cases from the High Court to the county courts, and I believe that that is probably right. However, the amount of money that the Government have allocated for that, including judicial salaries, ranges from £1·6 million to £2·1 million for the first three years. The Government also point out that there could be a bulge in activity in the courts which will be incorporated within a maximum figure of £3 million in the first year, £4·5 million in the second year and £5 million in the third.
  Ministers should explain to the House the basis for those figures, which are included in the explanatory memorandum at the beginning of the Bill. We are anxious that adequate resources should be available to ensure that the transfer is made speedily and effectively so that there can be adequate access to the county courts for people who, as several hon. Members who declared their interests as lawyers said, complain about cost and delays. Those are the two principal complaints about legal issues. I hope that the Solicitor-General can assure the House that the amount of money provided is adequate and that the calculations have been made very carefully.
  The idea of an ombudsman for legal services is good. The difficulties of complaining about barristers are legion. There has always been a qualification that people might seek to reopen a case if they complain about a barrister's negligence and sue in tort for that negligence. That has always been a difficulty.
  The Law Society has probably been the body most effective at protecting its members rather than the general public when complaints are made. As one might expect, the Law Society's rules for dealing with complaints about solicitors are highly complicated and normally require a solicitor to interpret them to the luckless person who believes that he has been badly dealt with. In my experience of constituents who have made complaints, a general system of supervision by an ombudsman is likely to yield better results more effectively and more quickly than the turbid and complicated rules laid down by the Law Society, which has a vested interest in maintaining those rules.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the ombudsman be a lawyer?
  Mr. Cryer: That is not absolutely clear.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: He is not allowed to be a lawyer.
  Mr. Cryer: I am informed from a sedentary position that the ombudsman will not be a lawyer.
  Mr. John Fraser: Will my hon. Friend give us an example of the complicated rules about making a complaint?
  Mr. Cryer: One of my constituents felt that his case had been mishandled by a solicitor, and wrote to the Law Society and obtained a copy of its rules. We went through the rules extremely carefully and found that he had very little basis for a complaint. That left him feeling dissatisfied. He had the bones of a case, but after an exhaustive search we were not able to proceed. That was my constituent's experience. As a result, I had to drag my eyes through the Law Society's list of rules, which I found to be extremely complicated. Rules to be used for facilitating complaints should be as straightforward as possible so as to encourage justified complaints.
  Legal education will cost about £750,000 in the first year. The provision for legal education and conduct is welcome because legal education seems unnecessarily chaotic. It is only relatively recently, for example, that polytechnics have started to run courses to qualify solicitors. I refer to courses such as the common professional entrance exam in which, in effect, an ordinary degree can be converted to a law degree to allow entrance to the Law Society finals. I hope that the money will be well spent to clarify the legal position and also to encourage the sons and daughters of working men and women to become solicitors and barristers.
  For many years, entry—certainly to the barristers' occupation—has been too expensive for many families to contemplate, despite the fact that in the past 10 or 15 years scholarships of one kind or another have been introduced.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: That is mythology.
  Mr. Cryer: I inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that for many families entry into the barrister's occupation represents a potential financial burden that they cannot accept with equanimity. Of course, under the Government, the general position with fees has not helped at all.
  According to the financial memorandum, the overall annual cost of the Bill will be about £5 million, rising to £6·5 million. That includes money payable for judicial salaries. I am sorry that the Bill does not tackle the difficult problem with our judiciary. The judiciary is appointed to be independent so that the arms of the Executive and of the judiciary are not merged and so that the Executive cannot warp the law. That is the theory, but it does not work out very well in practice.
  One problem is that judges are often ignorant and arrogant and cannot easily be removed from office except by a joint address of both Houses of Parliament. That means that some judges—I cannot name them because Members, as elected representatives, cannot even comment on judges, such is the insulation of their position —make statements about cases on which they have made decisions. Months later, they refer back to previous cases in which they have made decisions of horrifying indifference to some of the circumstances. By going on the media in the full glare of publicity and referring to previous cases, they resurrect the case on which they commented previously, which brings back the full horror of the first occasion to the family concerned.
  Mr. Skinner: That is Pickles.
  Mr. Cryer: Yes, quite often judges make thoughtless comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr.
  1524
  Skinner) was absolutely right to mention Judge Pickles. Judges say, "I can't be sacked, I must carry out my duties and I believe that they include commenting on cases as I choose." The Lord Chancellor has expressed general criticism of Judge Pickles' comments and, in a letter to me, he has also expressed great concern. The Government must tackle the problem of maintaining some independence for the judiciary, while providing a better way of ensuring that judges conform to some reasonable rules, which includes preventing them from commenting freely on judicial decisions that they themselves have made and producing the harm that I have described.
  Judges who feel that they are better in a television studio can abandon their jobs and go full-time as commentators or do some sort of comedy turn.
  Mr. Skinner: Pickles could be on a panel game.
  Mr. Cryer: Indeed. Judges should not persist in retaining their judicial function if that causes difficulties for people who are brought before them and for their families.
  I realise that there are difficulties, but this matter should be tackled in Committee. There should be some warning to the as yet handful of the judiciary who behave with complete impunity to all pleadings from the rest of the judicial establishment. The Lord Chancellor says that he can do nothing. I understand that if a judge comments in the fashion that I have described the practice is for him to be sent off to some provincial circuit with uncomfortable lodgings where it is drafty and nasty.
  Mr. Skinner: It cannot be too bad.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover queries what I am saying. I am told that that is the way in which judges are brought into some sort of conformity, but it is not working. It is fair to comment on that fact in relation to the money resolution, which deals with salaries paid from the Consolidated Fund. Indeed, they are paid from the Consolidated Fund so that there can be no taint of Government money being paid direct to the judiciary in recognition of its so-called "independent" position.
  In conclusion, I hope that the Solicitor-General has been suitably briefed on the money resolution because it is an important part of our scrutiny and, as I said earlier, with the Government's sorry record of incompetence, we have to seize every opportunity to ensure that that scrutiny is maintained.
  10.37 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The money resolution has proved an opportunity for a wide-ranging addition to the debate that we enjoyed before 10 o'clock.
  The key provisions in the Bill in relation to the money resolution are in parts I and II, which take forward the recommendations of the civil justice review and the Government's proposals concerning the provision of legal services. As the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has rightly said, part I is expected to give rise to additional annual expenditure increasing from £1·6 million to £2·1 million for the first three years. Such costs should be essentially transitional, representing the need to increase both judicial and administrative capacity in certain parts of the system—principally in the county courts—which will, in the main, be offset over time as a result of revised and streamlined procedures. As I said in

  1525
  the Second Reading debate, it is, however, estimated that there will be a continuing need for around 50 additional staff in the longer term to strengthen the listing arrangements in trial centres, which will be where the new work will in the main be dealt with.
  This is, of course, separate from the additional provision announced in the autumn statement last year, which will enable the Lord Chancellor to increase the numbers of staff in the courts by about 350 to take account of recent increases in the work load.
  Judicial salaries are paid from the Consolidated Fund, but those of registrars, who will be retitled "district judges" as a result of the Bill, are paid from the Lord Chancellor's Vote. The increase in numbers of the judiciary required in connection with part I will be predominantly at the "district judge" level. All the expenditure relating to this part—including the transitional bulge in legal aid expenditure referred to in the financial memorandum and caused by the faster throughput of business—is therefore expected to fall under the head at paragraph (a)(iii) in the money resolution.
  Part II of the Bill sets out the new framework for the provision of legal services and establishes the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee for legal education and conduct, the legal services ombudsman and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board, together with its associated ombudsman scheme and appeal tribunals. The cost of all these bodies—which will pave the way to enable the provision of legal services to become less restrictive, while maintaining standards and public confidence in those providing them—may be taken into account at paragraph (a)(i) and (ii) in the money resolution. However, it is intended that the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board and the conveyancing ombudsman should in time become self-financing through fees.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who unfortunately must be elsewhere engaged—
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: He is doing an interview on Sky television.
  The Solicitor-General: —welcomed the new scheme for the legal services onbudsman. He asked whether the legal services ombudsman had power to award compensation. The answer is that he has power to recommend compensation but not to enforce it. To enable him to enforce it would effectively make him another sort of court, whereas he is intended to be a different type of scrutineer. Publicity, which would no doubt appeal to the hon. Gentleman, is a considerable weapon in enforcing this type of ombudsman's decision.
  In order not to keep hon. Members from some clearly entertaining material, I conclude my remarks on the money resolution and commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Wrightington Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome the opportunity given to me by Mr. Speaker to raise the problems caused by the waiting lists at Wrightington hospital in my constituency and within the West Lancashire health authority which is almost coterminous with my constituency.
  Before I enter into the arguments on the matter, I pay tribute to the dedicated staff and doctors at the two main hospitals which make up West Lancashire health authority —Wrightington hospital and Ormskirk district and general hospital. In the past 12 months we have been granted £25 million by the North Western regional health authority to build a new hospital. I am pleased to say that it is now under construction. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health recently visited West Lancashire to cut the sod to start building the new hospital.
  The purpose of the debate is to draw attention to the problems of orthopaedic surgeons at Wrightington hospital. Waiting lists in West Lancashire health authority are low compared with national averages. That is a tribute to the staff. However, the position of the orthopaedic side, particularly upper limb, is extremely bad. It is acute and needs to be brought to the attention of the House. Action must be taken to deal with this problem.
  The major problem arises from the waiting list of Mr. John Stanley, the upper limb surgeon. He is in need of additional support. The problem arises because Wrightington hospital is a regional centre of excellence. It draws patients from all over the country. During the past 12 months, 94 district health authorities have referred patients there. It is one of those hospitals that has been in the forefront of orthopaedic surgical technique developments and has played a major part in the development of hip replacement surgery for people afflicted with arthritis. That has become an operation that is widely carried out throughout the Health Service, and much of the work on it was pioneered at Wrightington.
  Wrightington is also a centre of excellence for rheumatology and contains one of the small units in the north-west which deal with rheumatology in children. In recent years, the rheumatology ward at Wrightington has been the subject of debate in this House. I am pleased that, due to the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) when she was a Minister, that institution continues to supply a good service to the people of the north-west.
  At present, there are 1,660 patients awaiting admission to Wrightington hospital. Of those, 1,065 have been waiting six months or more. Of those, 791 patients are on Mr. John Stanley's list for upper limb surgery. His difficulty is that he is one of six specialist upper limb surgeons practising, particularly on hands and arms, in the United Kingdom. Of his patients, 568 have been waiting for six months, and 427 for more than 12 months.
  Therefore, the problem has existed for some time. When the Department of Health recently analysed the worst 100 waiting lists in the country, Wrightington's list came 58th. It was hoped, at that time, both by the district health authority and me, that the announcement by the Department of Health in the White Paper "Working for

  1527
  Patients" that 100 new consultants would be created would result in Wrightington receiving a consultant to alleviate its problems.
  The North Western regional health authority absorbs about 9 per cent. of the total national expenditure on health care. But an examination of the number of consultants who had been appointed by the Department, following the undertaking in "Working for Patients", found that only six had been appointed to the north-west —less, on a global examination of the position, than would be expected according to the number of patients and the volume of NHS resources absorbed by the North Western region.
  Today, the NHS treats more patients, with more staff, than ever before. It is a demand-led system. Resources have to be placed at the points where the pressure arises and demand is greatest. Wrightington falls into that category. Since 1985–86, the number of patients treated at Wrightington has slowly increased, from 2,305 in 1985–86 to 2,715 in 1989–90—an increase of more than 400 in discharges. But in 1985–86, the number of patients who had been on the waiting list for 12 months or more was 218; in 1989–90, it was 628. Therefore, despite the fact that more patients are being treated, the number on the waiting lists is increasing.
  That is a tribute to the success of Wrightington and to the ability of the doctors there to provide excellent service —but it is making matters more difficult. Ministers in the Department of Health have tried to lessen the problem by means of the waiting list initiative. We are grateful that in 1987–88 another 250 patients were allowed operations because of the increased resources from that initiative. The comparable figures for 1988–89 were 120, and for 1989–90, 140.
  However, despite consideration by the Department and its clear understanding that the problem needs tackling, the waiting lists continue to grow. It appears that Wrightington is a victim of its own success. If the problem continues, the waiting lists will only grow.
  An application has been made to the Department under the so-called Yates initiative, whereby the Government determine whether waiting lists can be reduced by providing funds to hospitals centrally. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look with some sympathy at our application for £235,000 to carry out more operations so as to reduce the waiting list.
  It is impossible to discuss the waiting lists in one hospital without also considering the district health authority as a whole. West Lancashire district health authority has two major hospitals—the district hospital at Ormskirk, where a new hospital is being built, and Wrightington itself.
  Over the past 12 months the formula by which the regions are funded by the Department has been changed. As a result, West Lancashire health authority has received a budget increase of 6·5 per cent. in the past year. That is made up of amounts of 5·8 per cent. and 0·7 per cent., the latter being a non-recurring sum.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will make the point that the retail prices index and health pay and prices costs are not necessarily one and the same, because the RPI contains some elements that are not relevant to pay and prices in the Health Service, such as mortgage interest rates, and so on. But some aspects of health costs, especially those relating to drugs, have risen in price well above the rate of inflation. So the district health authority,
  1528
  those who take an interest in health in the area and 1 all believe that 6·5 per cent. is not enough. If it is implemented, it will unfortunately entail a reduction in the health authority's resources over the coming years.
  The change in the formula, as it has affected the North Western region, worries me. Unless it is reconsidered, we shall face the same problem next year, and the year after. This year the problem has been concealed, to some extent, by the large increase in the NHS budget generally, but the same formula for determining increases will apply next year. The North Western region's morbidity rate is extremely high, and the formula has been changed to the detriment of the region. If the Department were to look into that, it would benefit the health authorities in the region, which is the second biggest in the country.
  When my hon. Friend does his calculations for Wrightington and examines the health authority's problems, I ask him to consider the performance of West Lancashire district health authority over the past few years. It is a model of financial rectitude and has followed Government guidelines time and time again. Over the past five years it has increased the number of patients it treats by 20 per cent. and has never overspent its budget. Unlike other district health authorities which have closed wards when they have overspent to reduce costs, West Lancashire has never called on that requirement, although major structural changes have been made as small cottage hospitals have been closed, such as Greenlane—Brandreth is planned for the future—to centralise treatment in Ormskirk, which is the geographical centre of the district, in modern facilities that are being built.
  The cost improvements asked for by the regional health authority and the Department have always been delivered, but a small authority which covers 120,000 patients who are served by the hospitals within its environs has its limits. There is a deep feeling, particularly among the members of the district health authority, that overspenders benefit, while they have done everything that they have been called on to do.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at all those factors when he considers West Lancashire health authority, particularly at the morbidity ratio and the changes in the formula that will affect the North Western region as a whole and West Lancashire in particular. I again impress on him that the service at Wrightington will be a demand-led service of excellence. It is recognised throughout the country as second to none. It is demanded and will continue to be demanded by the public. The consultants who are doing such a good job deserve the support not only of their colleagues on the district health authority, but of Members of the House and the Government as a whole. I hope that my hon. Friend will look with sympathy on the difficult task that they face, perhaps with a view to helping to alleviate those problems while improving the service to patients.
  10.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend I he Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on presenting a case on behalf of his constituents with his customary clarity and courtesy.
  It is nice to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after your visit to New Zealand. I understand.

  1529
  that you and your wife were able to combine it with a few days holiday. I hope that you enjoyed your holiday and that your official visit was a great success.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend concentrated his remarks principally on Wrightington hospital, which is just without his constituency boundaries. He would want me to say that our hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) represents the constituency that includes Wrightington. I understand that a good proportion of the staff and patients must come from my hon. Friend's constituency. It is part of the West Lancashire health authority, to which I pay tribute for achieving significant improvements in health care over the past six years. Indeed, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the most recent accurate statistics for 1982 to 1987–88 show in-patient admissions up 22 per cent., out-patient treatments up 33 per cent. and day cases, principally day case surgery, up 60 per cent. It is interesting that treatment of patients in the trauma and orthopaedics specialty increased by 29 per cent. between 1982 and 1988–89. Those are truly remarkable figures which are a tribute to the skill, dedication and hard work of the staff.
  Trauma and orthopaedic work, in which my hon. Friend is particularly interested tonight, includes broken limbs, hip and knee replacements and investigations into chronic arthritic conditions.
  I understand that, last year, some 3,730 patients in west Lancashire were treated for trauma and orthopaedic conditions requiring hospital treatment compared with 2,880 in 1982—a significant increase. One understands that the population is aging and that the pressure for orthopaedic care is consequently increasing, and that technological advances, particularly the modern marvel of the hip replacement, which my hon. Friend and I, if we ever reach a great age, may well be candidates for, make possible surgery that was not dreamed of by our parents, let alone our grandparents.
  My hon. Friend referred to the visit to Ormskirk of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to kick-start a piece of construction equipment preparing the site for the new hospital—a £25 million development, with 139 beds for medical and general surgery, 23 for children and 8 for intensive therapy patients, and a modern accident and emergency department. I am sure that my hon. Friend is looking forward to the completion of that project, which will be of great value to the people of Lancashire.
  My hon. Friend referred to the revenue allocation for west Lancashire, and I was busily trying to calculate the figures as he spoke. For the record, it is important to note that, for the year 1989–90, the year that has just ended, I calculate that the authority received some £25,310,000, made up of £24,568,000, to which was added AIDS money of £165,000, growth or development money of £379,000 and a number of other miscellaneous items totalling £198,000. The record should also show that, in the year to come, the allocation is £27,051,000, to which should be added an allocation for AIDS, certain White Paper work and capital charge preparation of some £200,000, giving a total of £27,251,000. I make that an increase of about £2 million, or 8 per cent.
  1530
  I would not argue with my hon. Friend about the precise mathematics, but when we start moving in 1991–92 to full and proper weighted capitation, I believe that, from advice that I have received, albeit provisional, my hon. Friend's district will be a gainer, presumably reflecting the fact that either the population is forecast to increase and/or demographic factors will move in favour of his constituents—that is, if their average age is particularly high in comparison with the rest of the region, or if their relative health is such that the district merits a greater allocation of funds. The provisional signs are that my hon. Friend's district will benefit.
  I understand that Wrightington hospital has located within it a regional specialty service for joint replacements, including upper limb, hip and knee replacements. One associates the hospital with the late Professor Sir John Charnley, who, even to a relative layman such as myself, is well known for his pioneering work on hip replacements.
  It is relevant to note that, of the 942 hip replacements carried out in 1988–89, 34 per cent. were for patients living outside the north-western region. My hon. Friend quoted a slightly different figure, but it made the same point, that on orthopaedic work the hospital is serving a broad area.
  The service deals with the lion's share of complex rheumatoid cases for the whole of the north-west and Mersey regions, and provides the only service for those two regions for wrist replacement and 90 per cent. of elbow replacements. It provides the only wrist surgery service in Great Britain, so it is not surprising that the hospital is facing a growing demand for surgery that is reflected in the activity figures for that specialty and in the waiting lists.
  Over the past four years, patient activity has increased from 2,232 cases in 1986–87 to 2,715 in 1989–90—an increase of 22 per cent. At the same time, the number of patients coming forward for treatment has increased at an even faster rate. One understands the reasons—the hospital's reputation and the increase in the aging population.
  The increase has been so fast that the number of patients waiting for more than 12 months increased from 339 in 1986–87 to 628 in 1989–90. At 1 March, 628 patients had been waiting for more than one year. My hon. Friend drew my attention to the fact that 427 patients are on Mr. Stanley's list for upper limb surgery.
  Wrightington hospital has met all the efficiency targets set for it by the region. Last year, a target baseline figure of 2,304 treatments was set, and 2,715 were achieved. The irony is that, the better and more successful a hospital is at treating patients, the more likely it is to run up against cash constraints imposed by the current funding system.
  My hon. Friend knows that, from April 1991 onwards, the new regime will benefit the hospital in two ways. First, there will be a contracting system whereby, if patients are referred from outside to a hospital of such distinction, money will follow those patients. The hospital's budget will become more flexible to the extent that, the more that it can attract patients from outside its district, the more money will flow into it. Secondly, our new system of allocating funds on the basis of weighted capitation should work in favour of districts where demographic and relative health factors indicate the necessity of allocating further funds.
  Mr. Hind: Is my hon. Friend aware that the consultants at Wrightington hospital have expressed interest in

  1531
  becoming a self-governing trust because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is in their interests to do so? That change could be of some help to them in the future.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that interesting fact to my attention. If we receive Parliament's permission to proceed with the initiative, we do not expect that the hospitals and other units announced this summer will comprise the full and definitive list. If Wrightington is not in the first wave, in the fullness of time we expect that it, together with all other establishments having the proper qualifications, will be included in what will be an experiment of great value to hospitals throughout the country.
  My hon. Friend referred to our inability to allocate an extra consultant to Wrightington hospital. It would not be helpful or constructive if I sought to justify that action. Suffice it to say that that decision was made by the Department and not individually by Ministers, which was the right way to proceed. We received twice as many bids as there were available consultants, so we were to some extent constrained by the number of qualified senior doctors able to become consultants. However, I understand my hon. Friend's specific point concerning the need for additional help in respect of upper limb surgery, which I shall bring to the attention of my Department's officials. I had not fully appreciated the point that my hon. Friend made.
  I may be able to give my hon. Friend some further encouragement in respect of the hospital's waiting list. Over the past three years, we sought to concentrate waiting list moneys on reducing the number of patients waiting for operations for more than 12 months. That was our top priority. We know that such patients numbered 628.
  1532
  I understand that the region has allocated some £431,000 to the district health authority over the past three years to treat 761 more trauma and orthopaedic patients, 500 of whom will be at Wrightington. In 1990–91, some £77,400 is being allocated to Wrightington as bridging money until Mr. Yates and his team make up their minds about any further allocation of funds to the hospital. That money will permit another 45 knee or hip operations, and another 25 upper limb operations.
  John Yates looks after a special fund: £12 million has been set aside to be allocated nationally, following an examination of all the waiting lists in every district specialty by the management team from the inter-authority comparisons and consultancy unit, led by Mr. Yates. The valuable work started by the team in 1989 will continue this year. I understand that it is now considering a bid from the district for some £232,000 to carry out 135 more knee and hip replacement operations and 75 more upper limb operations, and I know that it will consider the bid very carefully.
  It will take full account of the specialist nature of the work undertaken, and will know that the management executive led by Duncan Nichol is taking a particular interest in the number of hip replacements to be achieved in the North Western region this year. I understand that the team will meet the district chairman and managers in May to discuss the bid. Mr. Nichol will be interested in how it proceeds, and so will I.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Solicitors
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what advice has been given by the Lord Chancellor to judges about criticising solicitors from the bench without giving the solicitor an opportunity to be heard.

  The Attorney-General
  It would not be appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to issue advice to judges on a matter of this kind. However, in May 1989, the presiding judges of England and Wales issued a notice to all judges emphasising that, while the decision as to whether or not to criticise a solicitor in open court must be one for the discretion of the individual judge, there is and always has been an obligation on the judge both to give the solicitor an opportunity to be heard and to refrain from making criticism in open court until after the facts have been established.

  Burglary
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidance is given to magistrates as to whether magistrates courts or Crown courts are the appropriate courts for dealing with domestic burglary.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to the relevant legal provisions, the decision whether an either-way offence should be tried summarily or committed to the Crown Court is one for the discretion of the court. However, the Lord Chief Justice has set up a working party under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Farquharson to consider what guidelines might properly be given to magistrates on the committal of either-way cases, including domestic burglary, to the Crown court.

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average time which elapses between a letter seeking leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioners and notification of the decision of the Social Security Commissioners.

  The Attorney-General
  The average in 1989 was 404 days.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has received to shorten delays in the appeal process through the Social Security Commissioners.

  The Attorney-General
  I have received none.

EMPLOYMENT

  National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am always prepared to see representatives of small business organisations who wish to meet with me.

  Training (Staffordshire)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current special training needs funding made in respect of each trainee in Staffordshire; if he will identify extra training resources required by those with special training needs; and what are the proposed figures for the forthcoming year in respect of each trainee in Staffordshire for special training needs.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Training Agency programmes allow training to be tailored to meet individual requirements, and funding depends on the nature and severity of each trainee's need. The figures for the forthcoming year are for agreement between individual training providers and the Training Agency's area office and, in future, the training and enterprise councils.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many severely disabled people have received help under the business on own account scheme in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested about the number of severely disabled people helped under the business on own account scheme for each of the last five years is given in the table:

  Number of approvals

  1985–86

  5

  1986–87

  1

  1987–88

  6

  1988–89

  8

  1989–90

  7

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department has taken to ensure that 3 per cent. of its work force is registered disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: The Employment Department group has developed a number of initiatives to attract, retain and develop more staff with disabilities, both registered and unregistered. Specific

  839
  measures include guaranteed interviews for registered disabled people with the minimum educational qualifications; surveys of the needs of staff with disabilities and appropriate remedial action; new guidance for management; the improvement of outreach to organisations of and for people with disabilities; the development of arrangements for staff with severe mobility difficulties to work at home, the routine consideration of access to buildings, training and developmental opportunities and the provision in operational plans for special aids and equipment.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to broaden the scope of the careers service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Earnings
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing average weekly earnings for men and women by(a) industry and (b) industrial sector for the years 1980–89.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is published in tables 79 to 82 of part C of the annual new earnings survey reports for full-time male and female adult employees, and in table 177 of part F for part-time female adult employees. Equivalent figures for part-time males are not available. Copies of the reports are in the Library.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the numbers of men, the numbers of women, and the percentage of the population whose average weekly earnings are(a) £5, (b) £10, (c) £15, (d) £20, (e) £25, (f) £30, (g) £35, (h) £40, (i) £45, (j) £50, (k) £55, (l) £60, and (m) £65, or more below the average weekly, by industry sector for each of the years 1980 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The readily available information is published in tables 66 to 69 of part C of the annual new earnings survey reports for full-time male and female adult employees. Equivalent analyses for the weekly earnings of part-time employees are not available; the distribution of the hourly earnings of part-time adult women is published in table 172 of part F. Copies of the reports are in the Library.

  YTS
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the latest available figures for(a) fatal and (b) serious injuries among YTS trainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)Official Report, 26 March 1990, column 58.

THE ARTS

  Glory of the Garden Programme
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what further progress he has made with the Glory of the Garden programme.
  840
  Mr. Luce
  I have recently announced major changes in the structure of arts funding in the English regions. These will build on the changes begun in the Arts Council's Glory of the Garden initiative and will include a further substantial shift in grant-giving responsibilities from the Arts Council to the regions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Chinese authorities regarding the raid on the home and subsequent detention of Pastor Xiangao of Canton;

  (2) what representations he has made to the Chinese authorities regarding the persecution of the Church there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Our inquiries indicate that Pastor Lin Xiangao has by now been released. We and our EC partners have again recently expressed our concern to the Chinese Government about freedom of religion and the treatment of the Church in China, and specifically about the arrest of certain Catholic priests last year.

  Casablanca
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the seizure of cargo from the vessel Casablanca at Puerto Cortes, in so far as British interests are involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We understand that on 22 March at Puerto Cortes, Honduras, part of the cargo of bananas of the Netherlands-registered vessel Casablanca was removed in pursuance of an order by a Honduran court in favour of a US-owned banana exporter against a Honduran grower, and that the bananas removed had been bought for a British company for export from Honduras. Another vessel experienced similar difficulties on 30 March. Her Majesty's ambassador has expressed to the Honduran authorities our concern over the disruption of trade and our hope that any legal problems can quickly be resolved, to enable trade to resume without hindrance.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures are followed when a pregnant woman in the detention camps in Hong Kong goes into labour.

  Mr. Maude
  All the centres have well-equipped clinics but they do not have facilities for child delivery. When a woman goes into labour an ambulance is called by the clinic staff and she is immediately transferred to a maternity home or hospital. The ambulance response times are very short.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many posts the Chinese Government have said they would not allow Hong Kong residents with British passports to occupy.

  Mr. Maude
  The Basic Law provides that certain principal posts in the Hong Kong special administrative
  841
  region should be restricted to Chinese nationals who are permanent residents of the special administrative region and who do not hold right of abode in any foreign country. Based upon the current establishment of the Civil Service, this would affect some 20 to 30 posts. In addition, the Basic Law places the same restrictions on members of the Executive Council and the President of the Legislative Council: it also limits the number of seats in the legislature which may be occupied by persons who are not Chinese nationals or who have the right of abode in foreign countries to 20 per cent.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what definition of terrorism his Department has developed for policy purposes.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We use as a general guide the definition assigned to "terrorism" in section 20 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  Lebanon (Hostages)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken in the last two months by the Government to try and free the British hostages held in the Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have continued the efforts described in the answer give by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 January to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). The hon. Gentleman may be sure that our work to secure the release of the British hostages will continue unabated.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange a meeting with Mr. Perez de Cuellar, secretary-general of the United Nations, to press for new international measures to secure the release of British hostages held in the Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are committed to ensuring that the plight of the hostages remains high on the international agenda. We are in regular touch with Mr. Perez de Cuellar and his staff on this and other issues.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans an early meeting with the successor to the present Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss British hostages in the Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are in close touch with the Archbishop of Canterbury and his staff about the British hostages in Lebanon. This will remain the case for as long as necessary.

  Iraq (Nuclear Weapons)
  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 statement by the Arab League secretariat on 30 March supporting Iraq and criticising Her Majesty's Government regarding his statement in the House on 29 March on alleged attempts by Iraq to smuggle components for nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.
  842
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have explained in detail to the Arab League Secretary-General in Tunis our position on the prevention of the illegal export of capacitors from Britain.

  Israel (Soviet Jews)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel, assuming the settlement of such emigrants within the borders of Israel prior to June 1967; and whether this policy has been made clear to the Arab League and to the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We warmly welcome the freedom of Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel proper and elsewhere. The Arab League and the PLO are well aware that this is our view.

  Palestine (Terrorist Threats)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department will seek the co-operation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to investigate in order to establish whether any credence should be placed upon the threats of terrorist violence against Britain and other countries reported to have been made by the Islamic Army Front for the Liberation of Palestine on 31 March.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The PLO does not include a group of this name.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department will seek the co-operation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in order to establish whether any credence should be placed upon the threats of terrorist violence against Britain and other countries reported to have been made by a group close to the Palestine Hamas Organisation calling itself the Organisation of Revolutionary Action—Arab Resistance Front on 31 March.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The PLO does not include a group of this name.

  Jerusalem
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, following the statement of Mr. Yasser Arafat on 31 March, he will instruct Her Majesty's Ambassador in Tunis to ask the Palestine Liberation Organisation to specify what portions of Jerusalem should become Palestinian sovereign territory, and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on that matter.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are opposed to all unilateral moves to prejudice the final status of Jerusalem, which remains in our view to be determined by negotiation as part of a comprehensive peace settlement.

  Nepal
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to the Nepalese authorities regarding the imprisonment of the Rev. Charles Mendies.
  843
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Kathmandu raised the case specifically on 8 December 1989. We have regularly conveyed British concern about the treatment of Christians in Nepal to the Nepalese Government. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office discussed these issues during his visit to Kathmandu in late February.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support British embassies abroad are now giving to the Manchester British Olympic bid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  British missions abroad have been taking every opportunity to commend Manchester's bid to International Olympic Committee members. They have encouraged and helped IOC members to visit Manchester and have afforded every assistance to Manchester's Olympic bid committee members visiting their territories.

  European Council
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the criteria used in selecting the United Kingdom representative on the committee of permanent representatives to the European Council; and if he will list those who have represented the United Kingdom on COREPER since 1 January 1973.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom's permanent representatives to the European Communities since accession in 1973 have been:

  Sir Michael Palliser, 1971–75

  Sir Donald Maitland, 1975–79

  Sir Michael Butler, 1979–85

  Sir David Hannay, 1985 to date.

  All have been senior members of Her Majesty's diplomatic service with extensive experience of European Community affairs.

  Argentina
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent meetings with the Argentine Foreign Minister.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had a friendly and businesslike meeting with Dr. Cavallo on 9 April. They discussed a range of bilateral issues including investment, co-operation against drug-related crime and fisheries conservation. They also signed a visa abolition agreement, which is due to enter into force on 8 June.

  There was no discussion of Falklands sovereignty.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Haberdashers' Aske's City Technology College
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of the amount and date of any payments so far made by his Department to the Haberdashers' Company in respect of the costs of planning for the establishment of a Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college; and what further expenses in this respect he has agreed to meet.
  844
  Mr. MacGregor
  Payments of £37,732 were made to the Haberdashers' Company in February 1990, and payments of £16,982 have been authorised this month to date. I have so far agreed to pay the costs of a project director, educational consultants and legal fees in relation to the forthcoming establishment of a CTC company.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to accept the proposal by the Haberdashers' Company, in a letter dated 30 November 1989, that notwithstanding any future discontinuance of the proposed Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college, no obligation to repay capital grants should be imposed on the Haberdashers' CTC Company so long as the leased property in question continues to be used for educational purposes; and how this proposal accords with the provisions of section 105(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The terms of the funding agreement made between myself and the Haberdashers' Aske's City Technology College Company in relation to the establishment of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college will be in conformity with section 105(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the Haberdashers' CTC Company has yet been formed for the purposes of establishing a city technology college on the sites of the present Haberdashers' Aske's schools in Deptford.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Haberdashers' CTC Company has not yet been formed. I expect that a company will be formed by the early summer of this year, subject to the completion of the necessary processes.

  Traveller Children
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of traveller children attended(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in the latest year for which figures have been collected: and how many children are in each category.

  Mr. MacGregor
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is proposing to take to ensure that in the year 1990–91 all traveller children attend school.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is the duty of parents to ensure that children of compulsory school age receive efficient full-time education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude and any special educational needs they may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. It is for local education authorities to ensure that the parents of any children of compulsory school age in their area are fulfilling this duty.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total amount of grant sought by education authorities from his Department towards the education of travellers' children for the year 1990–91; what were the criteria for awarding allocations; and what, in each case, was the percentage and the amount awarded against the bid.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Grant was sought to support expenditure of £13·8 million on the education of traveller
  845
  children in 1990–91. The draft circular issued in July 1989 indicated that in the case of satisfactory bids exceeding the total grant available, priority would be given, as far as possible, to the maintenance of existing special provision. A total of 57·6 per cent. of the expenditure sought has been approved. The percentage of individual LEA bids allocated and the consequent expenditure levels are as follows:

  LEA

  Per cent. of bid allocated

  Approved expenditure £000's

  Avon

  70·0

  260·1

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  99·5

  207·1

  Berkshire

  95·6

  212·4

  Bolton

  0

  0

  Bradford

  96·7

  165·8

  Brent

  18·8

  26·7

  Bromley

  91·1

  84·1

  Buckinghamshire

  83·2

  245·5

  Bury

  39·7

  9·1

  Cambridgeshire

  84·4

  249·1

  Camden

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  55·0

  62·9

  Cornwal

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  15·6

  13·8

  Derbyshire

  52·3

  145·2

  Devon

  99·4

  139·5

  Doncaster

  26·1

  58·1

  Dorset

  90·9

  57·0

  Durham

  23·7

  110·7

  Ealing

  9·1

  12·0

  East Sussex

  40·4

  54·4

  Essex

  95·8

  509·5

  Gateshead

  75·0

  35·8

  Gloucestershire

  41·9

  59·8

  Greenwich

  77·8

  75·4

  Hackney

  0

  0

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  13·1

  9·6

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  Haringey

  63·2

  78·1

  Harrow

  25·1

  40·7

  Havering

  32·8

  8·8

  Hertfordshire

  96·3

  600·2

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  71·9

  96·1

  Humberside

  74·5

  226·7

  Kensington/Chelsea

  26·3

  8·0

  Kent

  13·1

  173·0

  Lambeth

  18·6

  16·5

  Lancashire

  95·4

  293·6

  Leeds

  68·7

  193·9

  Leicestershire

  28·7

  85·0

  Lewisham

  73·0

  49·0

  Lincolnshire

  97·8

  162·8

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  Manchester

  60·4

  286·1

  Newcastle

  34·8

  16·0

  Newham

  82·1

  46·8

  Norfolk

  33·9

  65·3

  North Yorkshire

  51·9

  105·0

  Northamptonshire

  78·3

  184·0

  Northumbria

  100·0

  32·0

  Nottinghamshire

  29·4

  28·8

  Oxfordshire

  98·5

  282·0

  Richmond

  73·0

  14·6

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  Salford

  0

  0

  Sefton

  47·4

  39·9

  Sheffield

  78·2

  156·4

  Solihull

  57·7

  22·1

  Somerset

  41·9

  58·6

  Southwark

  86·2

  200·5

  Suffolk

  82·2

  122·5

  846

  LEA

  Per cent. of bid allocated

  Approved expenditure £000's

  Surrey

  68·7

  322·9

  Tower Hamlets

  34·8

  17·8

  Trafford

  58·7

  19·2

  Wakefield

  79·0

  86·4

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  71·6

  114·8

  Wigan

  55·7

  56·3

  Wiltshire

  51·1

  76·0

  Wolverhampton

  87·2

  739·1

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total number of traveller children for whom education authorities made applications for funding from his Department in 1990–91.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Approximately 13,900 traveller children were identified in the applications for funding. The information received from authorities was, however, incomplete.

  British Antarctic Survey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the decision was taken to approve the funding to the British Antarctic Survey for the construction of a hard rock airstrip at Rothera base in the Antarctic.

  Mr. Jackson
  Additional funds for the construction of the crushed rock airstrip at the British Antarctic Survey Rothera station were announced by my right hon. Friend on 8 November 1988 at columns 134–35. The final decision on the project was subject to the completion of a comprehensive environmental evaluation and the incorporation of agreed environmental protection clauses in any contract. The project was finally agreed by the natural environment research council in August 1989.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make it his policy to make funds forthcoming to enable the British Antarctic Survey to remove abandoned bases and British rubbish on Deception Island by(a) allocating new funds for this purpose and (b) using part of the £22 million currently designated for the construction of a hard rock airstrip at Rothera base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Following the public expenditure autumn statement in 1989, a total of £250,000 was made available in each of the financial years 1990–1991 and 1991–1992, with £75,000 in subsequent years to assist the British Antarctic Survey with the improvement of waste disposal and environmental management at its existing bases and to assist with the clean-up of abandoned sites, including the one on Deception Island. Some of the £11·1 million allocated for the Rothera airstrip is also being used in minimising and monitoring the environmental impact of the construction.

  Displaced Persons
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local authorities have applied under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for grant to(a) finance existing provision for

  847
  refugees or displaced persons living in camps or reception centres and (b) finance new provision; how many of (a) and (b) have received grant; and what is the amount of grant allocated to each local authority.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The following local authorities have applied for grant to (a) finance existing provision for refugees or displaced persons living in camps or reception centres:Derbyshire, Richmond-upon-Thames, Surrey.
  (b) finance new provision
  Oxfordshire, Kirklees
  Derbyshire, Richmond and Surrey also applied for grant to expand their provision.

  All these authorities have received grant. Expenditure to be supported in 1990–91 is as follows:

  £000's

  Derbyshire

  35·2

  Kirklees

  26·7

  Oxfordshire

  15·8

  Richmond

  54·1

  Surrey

  39·0

  Manchester Education Authority
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his Department's meeting on 4 April with the deputation from Manchester education authority.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I met a delegation from the authority on 4 April. The delegation drew to my attention a number of concerns, especially the level of Manchester's annual capital guideline for 1990–91. The Department has made careful note of the points raised at the meeting and will bear them in mind in future discussions with the authority.

  Voluntary Youth Organisations
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set the level of funding for 1990–91 for voluntary youth organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Department has allocated £2·1 million in grant aid to 67 national voluntary youth organisations for the 1990–91 financial year, for a range of programmes of work related to this Department's priority objectives for the youth service. The organisations concerned have been informed individually of their allocations.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the level of expenditure by local authorities on discretionary awards to 16 to 18-year-olds in 1987–88.

  Mr. Jackson
  For the academic year 1987–88, local authorities in England and Wales reported expenditure of nearly £38 million on lesser-value discretionary awards made under section 2 of the 1962 Education Act (as amended) to students aged 16 to 18.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to announce the remaining subject working parties for the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend gave him on 15 March 1990,Official Report, column 318.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the provision of funding for in-service training for teachers specialising in special needs subject areas for the years 1985–86 to 1989–90.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Under the local education authority training grants scheme and the in-service teacher training grants scheme which it replaced, funds have been made available in each of these years for the training of teachers in special needs areas. Under the previous scheme, the funding was intended to cover expenditure of about £1·98 million in 1985–86 and about £2·079 million in 1986–87 on training teachers in special educational needs in ordinary schools. Under the present scheme, the total amounts of expenditure eligible for support in the relevant national priority areas were as follows:

  (£000s)

  1987–88

  Special needs (schools)

  3,500

  Special needs (further education)

  500

  Total

  4,000

  1988–89

  Hearing impairments

  1,500

  Visual impairments

  600

  Severe learning difficulties

  2,200

  Designated teachers in ordinary schools

  1,240

  Special needs (further education)

  600

  Total

  6,140

  1989–90

  Hearing impairments

  1,700

  Visual impairments

  900

  Severe learning difficulties

  2,500

  Designated teachers in ordinary schools

  1,400

  Special needs (further education)

  600

  Total

  7,100

  Allergy Research
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research projects financed by the Medical Research Council are being carried out into allergies.

  Mr. Jackson
  The latest information available from the medical research council (MRC) indicates that in 1988–89 total expenditure on projects wholly or partly related to allergies was about £1 million. A full list of such projects funded in 1989–90 will be available from the MRC in July.

  Bradford Community College
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to make extra funds immediately available to Bradford community college to obviate reductions in the numbers of students enrolled at the college and redundancies of teaching staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Bradford's education component of its standard spending assessment (SSA) for 1990–91 is £179·7 million. Decisions about service budgets and the allocation of resources are a matter for the authority.

  Schools Budgets
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he has any proposals to ensure that schools operating local management of schools receive a very high proportion of the schools' budget; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to devolve the whole of the schools' budget to eligible schools operating under local management of schools; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what measures are in place on the proportion that local education authorities can retain of schools' budgets; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what powers he has to ensure that a high proportion of the schools' budget is administered by the schools themselves.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Statutory guidance on local management of schools states that local education authorities are expected to delegate to governors responsibility for the large majority of their expenditure on schools. Most of the resources held back at the discretion of local education authorities are subject to an initial overall ceiling of 10 per cent. of total spending, with a target of reducing this proportion to 7 per cent. within three years. We will review in the light of experience the limit on discretionary retention of resources, including the items of spending subject to this limit.

  Education Support Grant, Liverpool
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money was available to Liverpool local authorities in education support grants in each of the last three years, and how much of the funding was taken up by Liverpool city council in each of those years.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The amounts of grant allocated to the local education authorities in the Liverpool area under the education support grants programmes for the last three years were as follows:

  £000

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Knowsley

  373·7

  541·0

  1,031·8

  Liverpool

  679·4

  941·5

  855·3

  St. Helens

  321·0

  455·6

  659·7

  Sefton

  154·6

  456·5

  519·8

  Wirral

  445·5

  521·6

  630·3

  The amount of grant claimed by Liverpool LEA in 1987–88 was £655,300 and in 1988–89 £896,300, representing a take-up of 96 per cent. and 95 per cent.
  850
  respectively of the LEA's approved allocations in those years. Figures for 1989–90 are not yet available, since a final claim for the last quarter of the financial year has not yet been submitted.

ENERGY

  Gas Tariffs
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will amend the Gas Act 1986 to reduce the 25,000 therm threshold for tariff control.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government's views on the 25,000 therm boundary is included in its response to the recommendations of the second report of the Energy Select Committee on industrial gas prices.

  Electricity Bills
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what assessment has been made of the effect of offering rebates on domestic electricity bills to prospective shareholders of the distribution companies on(a) the number of applications for shares, (b) the unit price of electricity for non-shareholder consumers and (c) electricity conservation;

  (2) what proposals he has for offering rebates on domestic electricity bills to the prospective or actual shareholders of the electricity distribution companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether any rebate he proposes for shareholders, prospective or actual, of the electricity distribution companies on their bills will apply to business customers (a) under 100,000 kw, (b) under 1 mw, (c) over 1 mw and (d) over 50 mw.

  Mr. Baldry
  No decisions have yet been taken on any incentives that may be available to shareholders and customers of the electricity distribution companies.

  Electricity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) of 2 april,Official Report, column 411, he will make it his policy to require the National Grid Company to purchase the renewables-sourced energy on behalf of public electricity suppliers in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date assessment of the amount of renewables-sourced energy purchased by the public electricity suppliers in England and Wales in(a) 1995, (b) 2000 and (c)

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The amount of renewables-sourcesd electricity purchased by the public electricity suppliers during the lifetime of the non-fossil fuel obligation will be influenced by the level of the obligation, and applications to contract within the first NFFO renewables order are now being processed by the suppliers in consultation with my Department. A series of further tranches will be brought forward during the 1990s; these are currently expected to total some 600 mw. The amount of renewables-sourced electricity puchased outside the obligation is a commercial matter for the suppliers themselves.
  851
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date assessment of the impact of the European Commission decision of 28 March approving the Government's non-fossil fuel obligation for the period 1990 to 1998 on the amount of renewables-sourced energy purchased by the public electricity suppliers of England and Wales in the year 2000.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Commission's decision to authorise aid in relation to United Kingdom nuclear electricity will mean that the amount of renewables-sourced electricity generating capacity will be significantly higher throughout the 1990s than if the non-fossil fuel obligation had not existed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date assessment of the level of renewables-sourced energy purchased by the public electricity suppliers of England and Wales in the year 2000 and 2005 coming from(a) methane gas recovery from landfill, (b) refuse incineration, (c) small-scale hydro and (d) wind power.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Renewables technologies have the potential to make a substantial contribution to electricity generating capacity. My Department's most recent assessment of the extent of this contribution is set out in Energy Paper No. 55, copies of which are in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Nuclear Installations (Safety Reviews)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive the final reports of the current long-term safety reviews on(a) Dungeness A, (b) Hinkley Point A and (c) Trawsfynydd.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate is currently undertaking detailed assessment of the long-term safety reviews prepared by the licensee at Dungeness A, Hinkley Point A, and Trawsfynydd. The inspectorate's findings will be published over the next nine to 18 months.

  Radioactive Gas Emissions, Sellafield
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment has been made of the extent to which the operation of the Pond 5 fuel-handling plant and the actions of staff at Sellafield have met health and safety requirements on each occasion that there has been an emission of radioactive gas from the pond arising from chemical reactions or works being carried out in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that during the operation of this plant there has been no incident which has led to significant emissions of radioactive gas.

  Energy Technology Reports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the main conclusions of the Energy Technology Support Unit report on environmental and economic implications of small scale CHP; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The report, the third in the energy and environment paper series by the Department's chief 852
  scientist's group at ETSU, examines the possible environmental and economic potential of small-scale combined heat and power (CHP) in Britain, and considers the realistic contribution that it might make to the abatement of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide. The broad conclusions of the report are that, in the longer term, there is a realistic prospect that small-scale CHP could provide electricity equivalent to about 10 per cent. of current demand, and that this would cut United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions by 4 per cent.

  I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the main conclusions of the Energy Technology Support Unit report on the abatement of gaseous emissions by energy-efficient lighting; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The report from the Department's chief scientist's group at ETSU, assessed the scope for using existing technologies to improve the energy efficiency of lighting in the United Kingdom. The broad conclusions are that, using cost effective measures, 8 per cent. of United Kingdom electricity demand could be saved; that the minimum potential for reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) was calculated to be equivalent to 2 per cent. of current United Kingdom CO2 emissions; and that, including reductions in other gases such as methane, total emissions of greenhouse gases would be reduced by 1·4 per cent.

  I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Business Investment
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product was accounted for by business investment in 1989.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product was accounted for by business investment in 1989.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product was accounted for by business investment in 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Business investment accounted for 13 per cent. of gross domestic product at current market prices in 1989.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of business investment during 1989 and 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Business investment reached £56 billion in 1989, at constant 1985 prices, up from £51·5 billion in 1988. Between 1986 and 1989 business investment grew by over 40 per cent. in volume terms.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from British industry regarding British entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
  853
  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of high interest rates on businesses.

  Mr. Ryder
  Interest rates have been set to put downward pressure on inflation, which is the greatest threat to the future prosperity of business.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing investment in(a) 1989 and (b)

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing investment in(a) 1989 and (b)

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates of manufacturing investment for 1989 and 1982 are shown at table I of the GDP press notice (CSO(90)39) released on 16 March. Copies of the notice are available from the House of Commons Library.

  Manufacturing Industry (Labour Costs)
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the unit labour costs for United Kingdom manufacturing industry for the last three years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The figures for unit labour costs for the United Kingdom manufacturing industries are given in the table.

  Year

  Manufacturing Unit Labour costs 1985=100

  Percentage Changes

  1986

  104·6

  1987

  105·2

  0·6

  1988

  106·3

  1·0

  1989

  110·5

  4·0

  EC (Trade Balance)
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of trade with the European Economic Community in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of trade with the European Economic Community in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of trade with the European Economic Community in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information may be found in the monthly review of the external trade statistics and its 1989 mid-year supplement, available from the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing output in(a) 1988 and (b)

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing output in(a) 1988 and (b)

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing output in(a) 1988 and (b)

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing output in(a) 1988 and (b)

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Figures on the level of United Kingdom manufacturing output are published in the monthly index of output of the production industries press notice, table 1.

  Training
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he expects his Budget to have on training.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor proposed a tax relief on business donations to the new training and enterprise councils, or TECS, most of which will be coming into operation over the next year. I expect this to encourage businesses to contribute more money to local training and enterprise initiatives.

  Football
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from football authorities about his Budget.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Football Association, the Football League and the Football Trust have expressed appreciation of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's proposal to reduce the rate of pool betting duty for the benefit of football supporters.

  Top Rate Tax
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by how much revenue from top rate tax has risen in(a) percentage terms and (b) real percentage terms since the top rate was reduced to 40 per cent.;

  (2) by how much revenue from top rate tax has changed since the top rate was reduced to 40 per cent.

  Mr. Lilley
  Liability to income tax at rates of 40 per cent. and above is estimated to have increased by £3 1 billion between 1987–88 and 1990–91, an increase of 40 per cent. in nominal terms and 15 per cent. in real terms. The estimate is based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and is provisional. It reflects independent taxation and the allowances and thresholds proposed in the 1990 Budget.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many taxpayers he estimates would pay more in tax were the top rate to be raised from 40 to 50 per cent.;

  (2) how much revenue would be raised were the top rate of tax raised from 40 to 50 per cent.
  855
  Mr. Lilley
  The revenue yield in a full year at 1990–91 levels for income from an increase in the higher rate of income tax from 40 to 50 per cent. is estimated to be £3 billion; 1·7 million taxpayers would pay more tax. The estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. They reflect independent taxation and the levels of allowances and thresholds announced in the 1990 Budget, but they exclude the consequential effects on capital gains tax and any behavioural effects.

  Investment Income
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much revenue he estimates would be raised by a 7·5 per cent. investment income surcharge on investment income above(a) £5,000, (b) £2,500 and (c) £1,000 in 1989–90;

  (2) how much revenue he estimates would have been raised by a five per cent. investment income surcharge on investment income above (a) £5,000, (b) £2,500 and (c) £1,000 in 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  Provisional estimates are as follows:

  Yield in a full year for 1989–90

  £ million

  Threshold

  Rate of surcharge

  £

  5 per cent.

  7·5 per cent.

  1,000

  1,000

  1,500

  2,500

  800

  1,200

  5,000

  600

  900

  Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are, therefore, provisional.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would have been the revenue gain of a capital gains tax threshold of £2,500 in the last financial year.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is tentatively estimated that the full year yield of a reduction in the 1989–90 capital gains tax annual exempt amount to £2,500 would be of the order of £100 million. This estimate allows for some change in taxpayers' behaviour in response to the reduced annual exempt amount, but does not allow for possible short-term effects. No allowance has been made for any change in the treatment of capital gains of companies which are taxed within corporation tax.

  Environmental Quality
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the fiscal measures he has taken in his Budget on the quality of the United Kingdom environment.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the fiscal measures he has taken in his Budget on the quality of the United Kingdom environment.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Budget proposed a widening of the price differential between unleaded and 4-star leaded petrol from 14·2 to 15·6 a gallon (3·1 to 3·4p a litre). This will continue the process, begun in the 1987 Budget, of encouraging car drivers to switch to the use of unleaded 856
  petrol. The burden of taxation on motorists was also shifted from vehicle excise duty, which was frozen, to petrol usage; the duty was more than revalorised to compensate. The Budget also proposed that tax relief be made available for expenditure by waste disposal operators on preparing sites for waste disposal and making sites good after disposal operations have ceased. These measures will bring worthwhile environmental benefits.

  Duty-Free Allowances
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the travellers' allowance which at present applies to goods obtained outside the European Community.

  Mr. Ryder
  The allowances for goods obtained outside the EC derive from EC legislation. They include both quantitative limits on alcohol and tobacco, and a £32 value allowance for other items. The £32 value allowance has the limited purpose of waiving duty and tax on small purchases of a personal or souvenir nature. The Government have long supported Commission proposals to increase this very low allowance, but some member states have blocked any rise for fear of the increased revenue loss from cross-border shopping or through opposition to the availability of duty-free sales for intra-EC traffic, to which the same level of allowances applies.

  The Government remain committed to a substantial increase in this allowance.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the responsibilities of each of the deputy secretaries in his Department and the number and ranks of staff reporting to each.

  Mr. Ryder
  There are six deputy secretaries in the Treasury. Their responsibilities and the number of staff who report to them are as follows:

  Responsibilities

  Staff numbers

  Overseas Finance

  European Community Group

  Aid and Export Finance Group

  International Finance Group

  (Three Grade 3, Six Grade 5, and 63 other staff)

  72

  Public Finance

  Fiscal Policy Group

  Financial Institutions and Markets Group

  Monetary Group

  Public Sector Finance Division

  (Three Grade 3, Eight Grade 5, and 105½ other staff)

  116½

  Industry

  Public Enterprises Group

  Industry, Agriculture and Employment Group

  Home Transport and Education Group

  (Two Grade 3, Seven Grade 5, and 86 other staff)

  95

  Public Services

  Social Services and Territorial Group

  Local Government Group

  Treasury Officer of Accounts and Purchasing

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  (Four Grade 3, Twelve Grade 5 and 489½ other staff)

  505½

  857

  Responsibilities

  Staff numbers

  Deputy Chief Economic Adviser

  Forecast and Analysis Group

  Medium Term and Policy Analysis Group

  Public Expenditure Economics Group

  (Three Grade 3, Seven Grade 5, and 46 other staff)

  56

  Civil Service Management and Pay (Responsibility of Second Permanent Secretary prior to January 1990)

  Management Policy and Running Costs Group

  Personnel Policy Group

  Pay and Industrial Relations Group

  Civil Service Catering Organisation

  (Three Grade 3, Nine Grade 5, and 1,102 other staff including 599 Industrials)

  1,114

  The remainder of the Department reports directly to the permanent secretary, the second permanent secretary (public expenditure) or the chief accountancy adviser. Staff in these areas total 1,169.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what aspects of the Brady plan to assist indebted Third world countries he envisages being implemented in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government support the strengthening of the debt strategy, agreed at the 1989 spring meetings of the IMF—IBRD, to allow limited use of fund and bank resources to support voluntary agreements between debtors and banks on commercial debt relief. The extent to which UK banks participate in these arrangements is a matter for their commercial judgment.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss Third world debt.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Right hon. Friend the Chancellor regularly meets the Government of the Bank of England. The discussions cover many subjects.

  Energy Prices
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the effect of proposed price increases in the gas and electricity industries on the average household budget.

  Mr. Ryder
  The announced increases in gas and electricity prices for the coming year will add about 0.4 per cent. to the retail prices index once the tariffs have been fully implemented. The combined weight of gas and electricity in the RPI is 4.3 per cent.

  Employee Share Ownership Plans
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had about his proposals for ESOPs.

  Mr. Lilley
  My Right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget proposal for a new CGT rollover relief for those selling shares to ESOPs has been generally welcomed.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the number of mortgage payers in arrears on their payments of(a) six months and (b) 12 months; and what are the comparable figures for 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Ryder
  The latest figures available are for the second half of 1989. They cover building societies and Abbey National plc. At the end of 1989 there were 58,380 mortgages six to 12 months in arrears and 12,100 were 12 months or more in arrear. The equivalent figures for the end of 1988 were 37,200 and 8,930 respectively and for the end of 1987, 48,220 and 13,000 respectively.

  Oil and Gas Revenues
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the reply by the right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) on 29 March,Official Report, column 281, if he will list the revenues accruing to the Exchequer in respect of crude oil, natural gas liquids and gas for each of the years 1980 to 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  Government revenues from United Kingdom oil and gas production cannot be apportioned between crude oil, natural gas liquids and gas. The available figures are as follows:

  £ billion

  Government revenues from United Kingdom oil and gas production2

  Gas Levy

  1980–81

  3·7

  —

  1981–82

  6·5

  0·4

  1982–83

  7·8

  0·5

  1983–84

  8·8

  0·5

  1984–85

  12·0

  0·5

  1985–86

  11·3

  0·5

  1986–87

  4·8

  0·5

  1987–88

  4·6

  0·5

  1988–89

  3·2

  0·4

  11989–90

  2·3

  0·3

  1 (provisional).

  2 Includes Royalty, Supplementary Petroleum Duty, Petroleum Revenue Tax and Corporation Tax (before ACT set-off).

  Invisible Trade
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of payments for invisibles.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The invisibles balance was in surplus by £2·3 billion in 1989.

  Fire and Police Services
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the impact on income tax levels of transferring the full cost of fire and police services to central Government.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The impact on income tax of any transfer of local authority functions to central Government would depend on the extent to which revenue support grant was reduced. If grant were reduced by the
  859
  amount of expenditure transferred, there would be no impact on income tax. But if grant were left unchanged, central taxation would have to rise. If local authorities spent in line with total standard spending in England and Wales, and total current expenditure in Scotland, the total cost of the fire service (including civil defence) and the police service in 1990–91 would be around £5,900 million. If this expenditure were transferred to central Government, and specific grants withdrawn but no adjustment made to revenue support grant, this would imply an increase of about 2p in the basic rate of income tax.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Treasury if MIRAS were available at a basic rate of taxation equal to 18 per cent.

  Mr. Lilley:
  1f basic rate tax relief on mortgage interest payments were given at 18 per cent. rather than 25 per cent. in 1990–91, the direct cost of mortgage interest relief would fall by about £2·25 billion. This assumes that higher rate relief would continue to be given where appropriate at 15 per cent. above the basic rate relief. No allowance is made for any behavioural change.

  Taxation
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effective tax rate for an individual on(a) 1·5, (b) two, (c) 2·5 and (d) three times average income if no income tax or national insurance contributions were payable in respect of incomes under £3,500, if the current top rate of national insurance contributions were payable on all income above £6,000 and at 2 per cent. on income between £3,501 and £6,000 and if income tax were payable at 18 per cent. for £3,501 to £13,500, at 28 per cent. for £13,501 to £22,000, at 40 per cent. for £22,001 to £32,000 and at 50 per cent. on all income earned above £32,001.

  Mr. Lilley
  The average percentage rates of tax and NIC would be:

  Multiples of average earnings1

  1·5

  2

  2·5

  3

  27·4

  32·8

  38·0

  41·5

  1 Average earnings are those for full time males working a full week at adult rates in all occupations in 1990–91; £303·80 per week; in line with the assumptions in paragraph 3.02 of the 1989 Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of collection as a proportion of revenue collected in respect of income tax; and if he will set out the figures for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Lilley
  The total cost of the administration and collection of income tax as a proportion of income tax receipts for the last 10 years for which final figures are available is as follows:

  Year

  Costs as percentage of receipts

  1979–80

  2·26

  1980–81

  2·40

  1981–82

  2·12

  860

  Year

  Costs as percentage of receipts

  1982–83

  2·17

  1983–84

  2·17

  1984–85

  2·25

  1985–86

  2·27

  1986–87

  2·29

  1987–88

  2·25

  1988–89

  2·24

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of collecting(a) income tax and (b) value added tax per pound collected in each year from 1986–87 to the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  The cost of collecting income tax and value added tax per pound collected is estimated to have been:

  pence

  Income tax

  VAT

  1986–87

  2·29

  1·03

  1987–88

  2·25

  1·02

  1988–89

  2·24

  0·95

  Shipping
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will offer ship owners tax incentives to make it worthwhile to invest in new and secondhand tonnage.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. The present capital allowances regime is already more generous than commercial depreciation for ships.

  Zambia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the status of Zambia's relations with the International Monetary Fund since 1985, listing periods when Zambia was in default on payments to the fund and periods when Zambia had no economic programme agreed with the fund.

  Mr. Ryder
  During 1985 and up to June 1986 there was no economic programme agreed with the International Monetary Fund, apart from one arrangement agreed in February 1986 which lasted two months. Zambia has been in arrears to the fund since June 1986. In March 1990 a fund-monitored programme was approved.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Central Statistical Office will now be producing the monthly tables of trade statistics previously issued by the Department of Trade and Industry; if the Central Statistical Office will continue to specify the extent of the United Kingdom's trade deficit or surplus which relates to trade with the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The enlarged Central Statistical Office took over responsibility for visible trade statistics on 31 July 1989. It continues to publish the monthly statistics of trade formerly issued by the Department of Trade and Industry, including table Al2 of the monthly review of external trade statistics which specifies the extent of the United
  861
  Kingdom's deficit or surplus with the European Economic Community. The information can also be found on the Central Statistical Office database, which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  European Community Contributions
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if there have been any significant changes in the calculation and assessment of contributions to and receipts from the European Economic Community since the United Kingdom's net contribution for 1989 was last assessed at £1,966 million; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he anticipates that he will publish the 1990 statement on the Community budget; and if this document will include the latest calculation of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Economic Community in the calendar year 1989.

  Mr. Ryder
  The statement on the 1990 Community budget will be published within the next few weeks. It will include an outturn figure for the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget in 1989; and will explain the differences between that figure and the forecast published in last year's statement (Cm. 680).

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the difference between the level of inflation for 1990–91 allowed for in the Government's standard spending assessments for local authorities and the figure assumed in his Budget forecasts; and what the difference in expenditure would amount to if local authorities increased their expenditure in accordance with it.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: Standard spending assessments for local authorities, like the public expenditure plans, are set in cash terms, and do not make any particular allowance for inflation.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the 1 per cent. forecast increase in the retail price index attributed to the community charge arises from charge levels in excess of the Government's recommended poll tax figure.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: If local authorities had spent in line with standard spending

  Range of total income of individual (£ per annum)

  Loss due to freezing of higher rate threshold (£ million)

  Percentage of total tax loss

  Total taxpayers (000s)

  Percentage of total taxpayers in range

  Total NIC payers (000s)

  Percentage total NIC payers in range

  Less than 5,000

  —

  —

  2,960

  11·5

  3,660

  15·4

  5,000 to 7,500

  —

  —

  4,290

  16·6

  3,580

  15·0

  7,500 to 10,000

  —

  —

  4,330

  16·8

  3,820

  16·0

  10,000 to 12,500

  —

  —

  3,420

  13·3

  2,990

  12·5

  12,500 to 15,000

  —

  —

  2,980

  11·6

  2,730

  11·5

  15,000 to 20,000

  —

  —

  3,760

  14·6

  3,450

  14·5

  20,000 to 30,000

  60

  15·8

  2,630

  10·2

  2,390

  10·0

  30,000 to 50,000

  230

  60·5

  1,010

  3·9

  910

  3·8

  Over 50,000

  90

  23·7

  390

  1·5

  330

  1·4

  TOTAL

  380

  100·0

  25,770

  100·0

  23,870

  100·0

  862
  in England and Wales, and with total current expenditure in Scotland, the average community charge in Great Britain would have been around £266. This would have meant an increase of only about 0.1 per cent. in the level of the retail prices index.

  Earnings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show for 1990–91 those ranges of earnings within which the burden of income tax plus national insurance is less than in 1978–79.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: Since income tax rates have been reduced and the main personal allowances increased by substantially more than the rate of inflation, taxpayers will now pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than in 1978–79 unless their incomes have risen even more rapidly than allowances. Average earnings have risen rather more than this.

  In 1990–91, for taxpayers of working age whose incomes have increased in line with earnings, average rates of income tax and national insurance contributions are lower than in 1978–79 for everyone except some married men with earnings up to and including three-quarters of the average. On the same basis, real take-home pay is higher than in 1978–79 at all levels of earnings.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the distribution of gains in the Budget for each item where(a) tax or (b) national insurance changes were made other than normal indexation, according to income bands: less than £5,000 per year; £5,000 to £7,500; £7,500 to £10,000; £10,000 to £12,500; £12,500 to £15,000; £15,000 to £20,000; £20,000 to £30,000; £30,000 to £50,000 and above £50,000; and if he will indicate the percentage of total (i) tax and (ii) national insurance changes accruing to each group and the percentage of the total numbers of (1) taxpayers and (2) national insurance that each group comprises.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 April 1990] : Information relating to income tax rates and allowances and national insurance contributions is in the table. Losses result solely from the higher rate income tax threshold remaining at £20,700. It is not possible to provide a breakdown by income distribution of gains from the doubling of the blind person's allowance. Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the savings, in a full year at 1990–91 rates, of restricting all allowances and reliefs to the standard rate of tax; and if he will provide a breakdown by category of allowance and relief.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be gained by the Treasury if the higher rate of MIRAS were abolished.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 April 1990] : Estimates of the direct revenue yield in a full year at 1990–91 levels of income from restricting the main income tax allowances and reliefs to the basic rate of income tax are as follows:

  £million

  Personal allowances

  1,390

  Mortgage interest relief

  510

  Retirement annuity relief1

  110

  1 Including relief for retirement annuity payments made by employees.

  It would be premature to provide an estimate for employees superannuation and personal pension contributions, since this would depend on take-up. Nor is it possible to provide reliable estimates for the effects of restricting other smaller reliefs to the basic rate.

  The direct revenue yield from restricting all reliefs and allowances simultaneously to the basic rate is likely to be in the order of nearly £3 billion, somewhat more than the sum of the yields from restricting the reliefs and allowances separately; this is due to the cumulative effect of bringing more people into higher rate tax. About two thirds of those who would pay more tax as a result of this change are currently liable only at the basic rate.

  Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. No account is taken of possible behavioural changes or the effect on receipts of capital gains tax.

ENVIRONMENT

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from British industry about the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on 5 February 1990,Official Report, column 446.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the reasons for the difference in the rate poundage used for calculating the uniform business rate in Wales and in England.

  Mr. Chope
  The uniform business rate has been set, in the light of the revaluation of all non-domestic properties in England and Wales, at the level necessary to raise broadly the same income from the business community in 1990–91 as was raised in 1989–90. This resulted in a rate poundage of 34·8p in England, where the national average non-domestic rate poundage in 1989–90 was 258·3p and 36·8p in Wales, where the 1989–90 average was 283·4p.

  Tree Replacement
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that the Countryside Commission has adequate funds to enable it to respond in an effective manner to tree replacement programmes in England and Wales.

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  Total grant-in-aid to the Countryside Commission for the forthcoming financial year has been increased to £25·136 million. This sum includes provision of £2·88 million for the work of the commission's special unit—task force trees—set up to assist replacement planting of amenity trees lost in the storms of October 1987 and January this year. The commission's general programme includes further assistance for tree planting, but it is for the commission to determine detailed allocation of its resources.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether expenditure on rubbish collection, street cleaning and campaigns against litter will be excluded from relevant expenditure for rate-capping purposes unless it is deemed excessive;

  (2) whether expenditure on sheltering the homeless will be excluded from relevant expenditure for rate-capping purposes unless such expenditure is deemed excessive;

  (3) whether that expenditure for protecting children against abuse will be excluded from relevant expenditure for rate-capping purposes;

  (4) whether the expenditure of public funds for building indoor lavatories in state schools will be excluded from relevant expenditure for rate-capping purposes;

  (5) what categories of expenditure he will exclude from relevant expenditure for charge-capping purposes.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has not excluded any categories of an authority's expenditure for the purposes of his capping decisions which he announced to the House on 3 April.

  Mr. Robert Banks:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, with their rates of community charge, those authorities which do not receive assistance from the safety net provisions and which also do not give to the safety net fund.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am arranging for copies of the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have announced a community charge which is higher than that determined by the metropolitan borough of Rotherham.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now list the poll tax figure and safety net figure for every local authority.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities gave today to my hon. Friend for Harrogate (Mr. Banks).

  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information will be provided to him by
  865
  local authorities for the purpose of assessing the impact of the community charge on charge payers, by district, age and income.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the level of local income tax which would be payable by(a) a man and (b) a woman on average earnings in 1989–90 and 1990–91 based on Kirklees council's planned budgets for those years.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 4 April 1990,Official Report, column 665.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the circumstances under community charge regulations in which there can be a personal community charge payer and a standard community charge payer living at the same address.

  Mr. Chope
  Liability to the standard community charge can arise only on the owner or lessee of a domestic property which is not used as the sole or main residence of another person or persons.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the cost of administration and collection of the poll tax in 1990–91(a) in Greater Manchester and (b) in Manchester Withington; and what were the respective costs of administration and collection of domestic rates in 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on the administration and collection costs of the community charge in 1990–91 is not yet available. Separate figures are not available for the cost of domestic rate collection, but the latest estimate provided by local authorities of the total cost of rate collection in 1989–90 is £11,332,000 for the Greater Manchester area. Figures for the Withington area of Manchester are not separately available, but the figure for Manchester city council is £2,467,000.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the budgeted spend for 1989–90 for each authority, with the equivalent spend uprated by inflation for 1990–91 and the community charge per adult such a spending programme would result in.

  Mr. Chope
  I am arranging for copies of the expenditure for 1989–90 for each authority to be placed in the Library of the House. Information about the assumed expenditure for 1990–91 and the resulting community charge per adult was placed in the Library on 11 January 1990.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost for each local authority of poll tax capping relating to(a) reviewing expenditure at service provision to meet his requirements and (b) preparing and sending out new poll tax bills.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) earlier today.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities known to 866
  him which have announced their intentions to extend beyond three months the period when a community charge is not payable in respect of empty and unfurnished property.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 4 April 1990, Official Report, column 665.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the list provided in his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside, of 12 March,Official Report, column 105, of regulations governing the introduction of the community charge and the uniform business rate which have yet to be (a) laid before the House and (b) debated by the House.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: The regulations still to be laid before the House are as follows:

  The Community Charge

  1. The form of substitute bills to be prescribed following a change in budget or precept.

  2. Adjustments to rates recoverable or written off after 1 April 1990 relating to earlier years.

  National Non-Domestic Rates

  3. Payment of interest on overpaid rates.

  The last debate on a negative resolution took place in the House on 26 March 1990, while an affirmative resolution was debated on 29 March 1990. None of the remaining regulations requires affirmative resolution.

  Tropical Rain Forests
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will institute a co-ordinated governmental review of adverse effects on tropical rain forests resulting from the tropical forestry action plan; if he will suspend funding for the tropical forestry action plan; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what input his Department has had into the tropical forestry action plan; and what account he has taken of recommendations about its effectiveness.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 5 April 1990,Official Report, columns 733-34.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much extra money will be available to Bournemouth borough council under his new proposals to tackle homelessness.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The extra £112 million resources for 1990–91 which I announced recently will go to local authorities in London and the south-east where. homelessness pressures, particularly the numbers in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, are greatest. Authorities outside this area, including Bournemouth, generally face less severe pressures of homelessness.

  Wales (Official Visits)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the dates on which he has made an official visit to Wales since his appointment to his present post.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Since my appointment to my present post I have made no official visit to Wales.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for South Hams dated 26 March concerning the position regarding the community charge facing Mr. R. J. Bray of Dovedale, Brixham.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will reply to a letter from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth dated 23 January referring to Mr. George Chadwick of Rugby.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 6 April.

  Caravan Sites (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department gathered in the process of granting designation to the local authority on(a) the location of private caravan sites in Bradford, (b) by whom they are owned and managed, (c) who has applied to operate and manage additional private sites, (d) rentals being charged by private site owners and (e) rental charges levied by Bradford council at caravan sites owned by the council.

  Mr. Chope
  We are aware that there are two private gipsy caravan sites in the metropolitan district which can accommodate a total of 12 gipsy caravans and that the city council's policy will be to encourage provision of small-scale private sites. We have no detailed information on the operation of these sites or on rental charges levied by Bradford council at the caravan sites that it owns.

  Expenditure (Rotherham)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how he expects his decision on the new expenditure levels within the metropolitan borough of Rotherham will affect the work of this authority to promote the economic regeneration of the derelict or non-derelict areas of the borough;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to take steps to ensure that his recent decision to reduce the expenditure of the metropolitan borough of Rotherham will not affect the capacity of that authority or of the South Yorkshire hazardous waste unit to maintain supervision of the public and environmental needs of the area concerned;

  (3) what is his estimate of the cuts in expenditure in 1990–91 which will now have to be made by the metropolitan borough of Rotherham in the fields of education, social services, highway maintenance, amenities and recreation, museums and libraries, environmental health and in the accommodation and housing provision for the elderly and disabled.

  Mr. Chope
  Spending priorities within any lower overall budget will be a matter for the metropolitan borough of Rotherham; as my right hon. Friend made clear to the House on 3 April, we are prepared to consider alternative proposals from Rotherham about the overall level of its budget.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the costs which will 868
  have to be met by the metropolitan borough of Rotherham in enabling it to implement his decision that the community charge shall be reduced.

  Mr. Chope
  As he informed the House on 3 April, my right hon. Friend estimates the costs of community charge capping will be about £200,000 per charging authority and that the total costs will be between £6 million and £7 million.

  Hospital Incinerators
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date all hospital incinerators are required to comply with the specifications contained in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution waste management paper No. 25 on clinical waste.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Department of the Environment waste management paper No. 25 is a technical memorandum providing general advice and guidance. Specific control of clinical waste incinerators with a capacity of more than one tonne per hour is exercised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The inspectorate is also currently drawing up specific guidance on standards for smaller incinerators which we propose to schedule for local authority air pollution control under the Environmental Protection Bill. This guidance will be published before any incinerator is scheduled for local authority control, and authorities will be obliged to have regard to it in setting standards in legally binding authorisations for individual hospital incinerators.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the definitions that have been used by his Department to define a bathing beach since the 1976 Bathing Waters Directive of the European Commission was issued; and on what dates the definitions were changed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The definition of a bathing water is given in article 1(2)(a) of directive 76/160/EEC. Further advice on relevant criteria for assessing whether waters should be identified under the bathing water directive was given by the Commission of the European Communities in October 1985, in an answer given in the European Parliament.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a revised version of table 3.5(a) in the 1989 Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics which would show a nothing found category separately from the total number of water pollution incidents.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Separately available figures for reported pollution incidents where nothing was found relate to the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 and are as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Anglian

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbrian

  —

  53

  100

  North West

  579

  705

  798

  Severn-Trent

  —

  —

  —

  Southern

  147

  126

  227

  869

  1986

  1987

  1988

  South West

  145

  327

  374

  Thames

  367

  745

  551

  Welsh

  —

  —

  522

  Wessex

  241

  243

  259

  Yorkshire

  278

  415

  441

  England and Wales

  1,757

  2,614

  3,272

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a revised version of table 3.5(b) in the 1989 Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics, separately distinguishing for each category of pollution the nothing found column.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify in the Official Report, what footnote 4 should be for the Welsh Water Authority in table 3.2, on page 27 of his Department's Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics No. 12, 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The footnote which was inadvertantly omitted from table 3.2 of the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics No. 12" referred to sewage treatment works in the Welsh Water area and should have been as follows:"The majority of the works with numerical consents which were not tested for compliance are understood to be small works for which the authority are asking for descriptive consents."

  Cleaning Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how and by whom cleaning services are provided to Wellbar house, Gallowgate, Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Chope
  Cleaning services at Wellbar house are currently contracted to ISS Servisystem Ltd. and the City and Suburban Window Cleaning Company Ltd.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what official research has been undertaken with local authorities' practices and policies with regard to mobile homes; and what conclusions have been drawn.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department is currently engaged in research on the mobile homes sector including a postal survey of local authorities in England and Wales and physical and social studies of selected sites. We expect to have the full results of the research programme early next year.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of hedgerows have been removed and how many miles planted(a) since 1 January 1960 and (b) since 1979.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Various estimates have been made for past periods but none covers precisely the periods to which my hon. Friend refers.
  870
  A survey of landscape change in England and Wales carried out for my Department and the Countryside Commission in 1986 by Huntings Survey and Consultants Limited showed annual losses in England and Wales of some 2,600 miles of hedgerow between 1947 and 1969, 2,900 miles between 1969 and 1980, and 4,000 miles between 1980 and 1985. A postal survey of farmers on environmental topics carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1985 however showed annual losses of 500 miles between 1980 and 1985. The two surveys used different methodologies and neither can be regarded as definitive.

  Since 1973 grants have been available to farmers for planting of new hedgerows and for hedgerow laying. In the two years 1987 and 1988, grant was paid for the equivalent of almost 1,200 miles of new hedge planting.

  Work is continuing to improve information both on the rate of removal and on the extent of new planting.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had, and with whom, on the introduction of landscape conservation orders as a means of preserving hedgerows.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such discussions have taken place.

  Defective Housing, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department is giving to Nottingham city council to rebuild those Tarran Newland design houses designated as defective in the Beechdale area of Nottingham.

  Mr. Chope
  Nottingham city council's housing investment programme allocation for 1990–91 took full account of the condition of the housing stock in its area. Where private owners of Tarran or Newland properties qualify for assistance by way of reinstatement an exchequer contribution of 90 per cent. is made.

  Caravan Sites
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether gypsies living on official local authority sites are subject to the payment of individual community charges; and whether those sites are classified as non-domestic premises.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: A caravan used as a sole or main residence is domestic property and its occupiers are liable to the personal community charge unless they are exempt. In general those parts of a caravan site consisting of non-domestic property are subject to business rates.

HEALTH

  South Manchester Health Authority
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds have been available within the South Manchester health authority in each of the past 15 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information regarding the number of hospital beds available within the South Manchester health authority is given in the table.
  871

  Average number of hospital beds available per day in South Manchester

  Year

  Beds

  1974

  2,387

  1975

  2,342

  1976

  2,409

  1977

  2,390

  1978

  2,454

  1979

  2,407

  1980

  2,423

  1981

  2,389

  1982

  2,401

  1983

  2,417

  1984

  2,355

  1985

  2,277

  11986–87

  2,187

  1987–88

  2,112

  1988–89

  2,068

  1 Change in 1985 from calender to financial years.

  Census Material
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between officials of his Department or of the census office and the Post Office about use of postal codes in the publishing of census material.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys hold regular meetings with the Post Office to discuss the maintenance of OPCS's central postcode directory, which is used by Government Departments and the Health Service to allocate data already held on a post code basis to administrative areas. The use to be made of post codes in statistics to be published from the 1991 census has not yet been discussed in detail at these meetings, although agreement has existed since 1985 that aggregates of post codes could be used to define areas for census statistics.

  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants who served on regional consultants and specialist committees receive merit awards on their retirement; and what percentage this is of all consultants serving on such committees.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally. The Government's White Paper "Working for Patients" proposes a number of reforms to the distinction awards system, including a proposal aimed at preventing awards being given close to retirement age. This is currently under discussion with the profession.

  Children (Illegal Employment)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest official estimate of the number of children illegally employed in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish an official estimate of the number of children engaged in illegal employment in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish official statistics on the number of children illegally employed in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.
  872
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish official figures for the number of children illegally employed in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 9 March 1990 at columns 893-94.

  Royal Colleges
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the presidents of the royal colleges; and what subjects will be discussed.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the presidents of the royal colleges; and what subjects will be discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Whilst no firm date has been set for the next meeting with the presidents of the royal colleges, the previous pattern of formal and informal meetings, either with individual presidents or collectively, is expected to continue, for discussing a range of important health issues.

  British Medical Association
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the president of the British Medical Association; and what he intends to discuss.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the president of the British Medical Association; and what he intends to discuss.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no present plans to meet the president of the British Medical Association.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy towards the use of fluoride as a means of arresting and preventing dental caries; what evaluation he has made of its effectiveness as an agent; and what measures he is adopting to ensure that it is available to population groups most at risk.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's view is that fluoridation of drinking water constitutes a safe and effective means of reducing tooth decay. Evidence of the efficacy of fluoridation in this country is well documented and recent studies confirm the view that further reductions in caries levels in children's teeth, over and above the general decline in caries which has occurred, are achievable through fluoridation of domestic water supplies. These benefits are particularly cost effective in areas where caries levels are otherwise high.

  The Government believe it right that decisions on fluoridation should be taken at a local rather than national level. The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 imposes a statutory duty on district health authorities to engage in widespread public consultation before any decisions on the implementation of fluoridation schemes are taken. While it is our general view that we should support local initiatives, it is the task of the district health authority to weigh the advantages of fluoridation when deciding to ask water

  873
  undertakers to fluoridate water supplies in the area. The final discretion whether to agree to fluoridation must, however, rest with water undertakers who need to be satisfied that the health authorities' proposals are technically feasible.

  Nurses
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the current levels of nurse staffing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Responsibility for setting levels for nursing staff is a matter for individual health authorities, which determine those levels as part of the regular planning process, in the light of local needs and priorities and the available resources.

  Heart Transplants
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many heart transplant operations have been conducted in(a) Harefield hospital and (b) Papworth hospital in each of the last 12 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Available information from Harefield and Papworth hospitals, for the 11 years from 1979 to 1989, is shown in the table.

  Harefield

  Papworth

  Heart

  Heart/lung

  Heart

  Heart/lung

  1979

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1980

  14

  —

  11

  —

  1981

  13

  —

  13

  —

  1982

  21

  —

  16

  —

  1983

  34

  1

  19

  —

  1984

  78

  7

  39

  3

  1985

  87

  31

  44

  6

  1986

  109

  42

  52

  10

  1987

  140

  55

  58

  15

  1988

  133

  69

  58

  22

  1989

  131

  53

  53

  17

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients who have undergone heart transplant operations in the last 12 years have died either as a primary or secondary result of cytomegalavirus.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of junior hospital doctors in the Eastern region worked rotas of one in three or worse during the years 1987, 1988, 1989 and estimated for 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is not available in the form requested. We do, however, have a report from the East Anglian regional health authority on the results of our June 1988 initiative on junior doctors' hours. Some 40 per cent. of junior doctors in the region were on one in three rotas or worse in 1988. By September 1990, some 24 per cent. of junior doctors are expected to be on onerous one in three rotas or worse. This compares with an expected national total of around 13 per cent. on such rotas by that date.

  Allergies
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research projects financed by his Department are being carried out into allergies.
  874
  Mr. Freeman
  None. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 3 April 1990, at column 519.

  Christie Hospital
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the costs of providing treatment at Christie hospital will flow back to Christie hospital from those districts which purchase care from Christie hospital in circumstances in which Christie remains(a) a directly managed hospital or (b) a National Health Service trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is intended that contracts between purchasing authorities and hospitals, whether directly managed or under trust status, will cover the full costs of treatment.

  Haemophiliacs
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many haemophiliac victims of HIV contaminated factor VIII have died from AIDS; and how many have died since November 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The total number of haemophiliacs with AIDS who have died up to the end of February 1990 is 118. Of that figure 11 have died since November 1989. It is not known how many died as a result of AIDS or from any other cause.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many writs from haemophiliac victims of HIV-contaminated factor VIII have been filed against his Department, regional health authorities and the Committee on Safety of Medicines; and how many were received(a) by 31 December 1989 and (b) since 1 January 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities are separately represented and the Department does not routinely receive information on the number of writs issued against them. I understand that 928 writs have been filed against the Department and Committee on Safety of Medicines, of which around 650 were received by 31 December 1989.

  Cosmetics
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has made an assessment of the health implications in respect of the clearance given for use as additives in cosmetics of(a) silver nitrate, (b) ammonia and (c) aluminium-based substances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No separate assessment has been made. Certain substances used in cosmetics are controlled by the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 2233) which implements European Council directive 76/768/EEC as amended by EEC directive 82/368/EEC and subsequent Commission directives. The regulations detail substances that are either not permitted in cosmetics or are permitted subject to specified restrictions. Colouring agents other than those used solely to colour hair, preservatives and UV filters are not permitted unless listed in the schedules to the regulations. Advice on the safety in use of substances used in cosmetics is provided by the EEC Scientific Committee on Cosmetology.
  875
  Silver nitrate, ammonia and aluminium based substances are allowed in cosmetics only up to specified limits and the products must be labelled as containing these substances. They are listed in schedule 2, part I of the regulations as
  "substances which cosmetics must not contain except subject to the restrictions laid down."

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has made an assessment of the implications for human health of the clearance given to additives for use in cosmetics which are banned for use as additives in food products.

  Mr. Freeman
  Exposure to substances approved for use in cosmetics, that is those substances covered by the EEC cosmetics directives, is not comparable to exposure to approved food additives which are invariably ingested. Both are approved only after careful assessment of the health implications. If the hon. Member has any particular substance in mind perhaps he would let me know the details.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will outline his Department's responsibilities in respect of the safety of cosmetic products.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health provides advice to the Department of Trade and Industry on all matters pertaining to the safety assessment of cosmetics. Also a toxocologist from the Department is a member of the EEC's Scientific Committee on Cosmetology, established under the terms of the cosmetics directives to advise on the toxicity of cosmetic ingredients and products.

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet the director of the centre for applied microbiology and research at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no immediate plans to do so. However, officials both of the Department, and of the public health laboratory service of which the centre forms a part, are in regular contact with the director.

  Correspondence
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now answer the letter to him from the hon. Member for Peckham of 26 March about community care services in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  I replied yesterday.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details about the consultation which will precede the establishment of self-governing trusts; and if he will give(a) when consultations will begin, (b) how long they will last for, (c) who will be involved, (d) how they will be monitored and (e) where the results will be published.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Applications for NHS trust status will not be invited until after parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation. The relevant region 876
  will publicise the proposals and make arrangements for consultation. It will be for regions to determine how best to do this. However, in general we would expect consultation to last for a period of three months. We expect regions to seek the views of those with an interest, particularly the health authorities concerned, staff at the unit, general practitioners, community health councils and the local community. Regions will forward applications, responses received during consultation, and any comments they may have on them to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State so that he can consider them with the application. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State decides to approve an application he will make an order to establish the trust.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cousins
  to ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of HIV-positive persons, (b) the number of AIDS patients and (c) the number of deaths from AIDS in each year and in total to the latest available date both for the United Kingdom and for each National Health Service region since the AIDS epidemic began; and if he will show (i) the numbers of haemophiliacs so affected and (ii) the numbers of non-haemophiliacs so affected as a consequence of infected blood products.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The tables showing the information reported to the communicable disease surveillance centre and the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit have been placed in the Library. Numbers below 10 in tables showing AIDS data are represented by an asterisk in line with the procedure followed in reports under the AIDS (Control) Act, to safeguard confidentiality.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to repeat the waiting list initiative; and if he will make a statement about the previous initiative.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 30 March 1990, c. 370]: I understand that there was a misprint in the hon. Member's question as it first appeared on the Order Paper which rendered the reply inappropriate. A revised reply is as follows.

  The waiting list initiative is being continued in 1990–91. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on 18 January 1990 at columns 403-04. No decisions have yet been taken about whether to continue the initiative into 1991–92 and beyond.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Battle of the Boyne (Tercentenary)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the tercentenary of the battle of the Boyne will be officially recognised in Northern Ireland this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The 12 July 1990 will be a bank holiday in Northern Ireland, as in previous years.

  Substantial sponsorship has been provided for a major exhibition at the Ulster museum, entitled "Kings in

  877
  Conflict", which examines the roles of William the Third, James the Second and Louis the Fifteenth in Ireland in the 1690s.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether United Kingdom civil servants working in Northern Ireland operate under the same monitoring system and code of practice as that detailed in the written reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 21 February,Official Report, column 768.

  Mr. Cope
  All Northern Ireland employers are guided by the code of practice published by the Department of Economic Development on 31 December 1989 and subsequently adopted by the Fair Employment Commission as its first code of practice under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether members of harbour boards in Northern Ireland are considered as employees by the Fair Employment Commission in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: I am advised that the Commission has not examined the terms upon which members are appointed.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are being taken to rectify and monitor the religious imbalance amongst employees at principal officer grade and above in the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The results of monitoring and the measures being taken to provide equality of opportunity in the Northern Ireland civil service are published in the reports of its equal opportunities unit. Copies of these reports are in the Library. These give details about the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  Discussions have already taken place with the Fair Employment Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission about the published findings and the future work programme of the equal opportunties unit. It has been agreed that the latter will focus on the level of representation of females and of Roman Catholics in the higher grades in the Northern Ireland civil service.

  Training
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what he is doing to co-ordinate the efforts of the departments of education and economic development on funding and training, to ensure that young people will receive training to equip them with skills and qualifications sought by employers.

  Mr. Needham
  The youth training programme is the joint responsibility of the Ministers responsible for the Departments of Education and of Economic Development and there are a number of working groups of senior officials from both Departments which meet on a regular basis to co-ordinate action.

  Executive Houses
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the executive houses at(a) Beechfield estate, Donaghadee and (b) Enniskeen estate, Craigavon were built; when the Northern Ireland Housing Executive carried out or proposes to carry out an improvement scheme to houses in both these estates; and why it was decided to give priority to Enniskeen estate.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The information that it would provide is that Beechfield estate was completed in 1965 and Enniskeen estate in 1971.

  Twenty-eight dwellings in Beechfield estate were fully improved in 1985 and a further 18 had central heating installed. Improvements to the remainder of the estate which have yet to be fully assessed are programmed to begin in the 1992–93 financial year. An external maintenance scheme is currently on site.

  Enniskeen estate had central heating installed in 1986 as part of the degasification programme. An external maintenance scheme was completed in 1987 and replacement kitchen units installed in 1989. No further improvements are programmed.

  Priorities within each Housing Executive region are determined on the basis of the Housing Executive's assessment of the needs of individual estates.

  Flooding (Donaghadee)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to take to stop the regular flooding at Church lane, Donaghadee, near the old people's home.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No buildings have been affected.

  From initial investigations it appears that the flooding is associated with an old culverted millrace which runs through the area. The millrace is not designated within the terms of the Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973. The Department of Agriculture is undertaking further investigations with a view to determining the nature and source of any drainage disability and the person(s) responsible for the millrace.

  Flooding, Omagh
  The Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons it was decided not to provide the statistical and technological investigations relating to the October 1989 flooding in Omagh to the development officer of Omagh district council.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following flooding in October 1987 a consultant's report on the flood defences in Omagh was commissioned by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. The report is private to the Department.

  The Department is in the final stages of consideration of the options contained in the report and proposals will be exhibited in line with normal consultation procedures at the offices of Omagh district council. The Department will discuss the proposal with the council at the appropriate time.

  Quarrying
  The Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount of money paid in grants by the various departments of the
  879
  Northern Ireland Department of Environment to the quarrying, sand and gravel industries during the period the grant was available; and what was the breakdown of payments in the Mid-Ulster constituency.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment has paid no grants to companies in these sectors. During the past five financial years grants paid to the quarrying, sand and gravel industries in Northern Ireland by the Department of Economic Development were as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  3,482,376

  1986–87

  1,125,367

  1987–88

  160,736

  1988–89

  166,788

  1989–90

  38,681

  Total

  4,973,948

  The above figures include the following amounts which were paid to companies in the Mid-Ulster constituency:

  £

  1985–86

  136,462

  1986–87

  36,197

  1987–88

  6,212

  1988–89

  —

  1989–90

  —

  Total

  178,871

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the recently established nine posts of director within the Eastern health and social services board were filled; and how these positions differ in their range of management responsibilities and in salary from the posts that they replaced.

  Mr. Needham
  As the information requested is complex and detailed, my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale will write to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are being made by the Eastern health and social services board, pursuant to the abolition of the area executive team with effect from 1 April to ensure that the day-to-day management of health and social services are maintained at high level.

  Mr. Needham
  The board's general manager will have a strategic management group consisting of nine headquarters directors to support and assist him in the management of the services. The recently appointed unit general managers took up their posts from 1 April 1990 and will each be responsible to the general manager for the management and provision of services within one of the nine units of management.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated additional cost in 1990–91 of the current restructuring of the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Needham
  It is expected that the net effect of the restructuring will be that the board expects to maintain its administration costs at approximately 5 per cent. as in previous years.

  Enterprise Ulster
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many clients have been asked by Enterprise Ulster to supply additional materials during the course of a job so that it could be completed; and, where this has occurred, what checks were made to ensure that proper use was made of the materials originally supplied.

  Mr. Needham
  There are no figures available of the number of Enterprise Ulster clients who have been asked and agreed to the supply of additional materials during the course of a job.

  Strict checks are carried out by supervisory staff on all materials supplied and used.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements there are for Enterprise Ulster having been supplied with materials for a client job not all of which have been used to make a payment in lieu of the return of the material.

  Mr. Needham
  None. Any surplus materials are either returned to the client or, with his agreement, transferred to another job.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are taken to ensure that the practice of Enterprise Ulster in requiring clients to supply the materials needed for a particular job ensures efficient use of such materials and allows for proper stock control.

  Mr. Needham
  The use of materials, whether obtained by Enterprise Ulster or supplied by clients, is supervised, controlled and monitored by Enterprise Ulster's supervisors and area superintendents who are trained in efficient materials usage and stock control.

  Substitute Teachers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he received the details from Donaghadee high school of substitutes teaching in the school during the month of February; when the substitute teachers will be paid for their work during the month of February; and in which year such payments will be included for tax purposes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Details of the substitute teachers employed in Donaghadee high school during the month of February 1990 were not received in the Department of Education until 21 March 1990. This was two weeks after the due date for receipt of such information and was too late for the normal pay date on 16 March 1990 or the supplementary payroll issued on 20 March 1990.

  Special arrangements have been made to issue payment by Friday 6 April 1990 to the substitute teachers for their work during the month of February 1990.

  The payment will be made in the 1990–91 tax year and will be included in that tax year for tax purposes.

  Enterprise Centres
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a list of enterprise centres in Belfast, together with the number of units and the percentage number of units occupied in each centre.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:
  881

  Enterprise centre

  Number of units

  Percentage occupied

  Brookfield Business Centre

  50

  92

  Farset Enterprise Park

  26

  39

  Glenwood Enterprises Ltd.

  36

  86

  Townsend Enterprise Park

  26

  100

  Westlink Enterprises

  31

  28

  Workwest Belfast

  15

  87

  Action Resource Centre

  12

  100

  West Belfast Enterprise Board

  11

  82

  Community Programmes, Belfast
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a list of programmes funded by BAT and Making Belfast Work, the name of the recipient community organisation and the expenditure involved in each case.

  Mr. Needham
  In view of the large amount of material involved, I will write to the hon. Member and place copies of the information in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report the level of expenditure on income support for each social security office in Belfast for the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and from April to December 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  The available information is as follows:

  Weekly Expenditure

  Social Security Office

  Supplementary pension/allowance

  Income Support

  6 May 1987

  31 May 1988

  £

  £

  Andersontown

  286,905·02

  299,539·46

  Corporation Street

  371,623·59

  438,914·83

  Falls Road

  282,316·97

  327,328·97

  Holywood Road

  233,191·10

  284,933·05

  Knockbreda

  158,308·59

  160,504·29

  Homes for persons in need

  Nursing Homes

  Statutory

  Private

  Statutory

  Private

  Number of Premises

  126

  97

  —

  118

  Number of Places

  3,988

  1,285

  —

  3,353

  Notes:

  1. At 31 March 1989.

  2. At 31 December 1989.

  In addition, 40 voluntary homes for persons in need provide 1,271 places and 11 voluntary nursing homes provide 398 places.

  Standard weekly charges for statutory homes for persons in need range from £171 to £198 depending on the location of the home and whether it is accommodating elderly, disabled, mentally ill or mentally handicapped people.

  Residents who are unable to pay the standard minimum charge may pay a lesser amount, determined by their income. The minimum charge is £37·50 which is equivalent to the basic rate of retirement pension less the personal requirements allowance. A resident whose income is less than the basic rate of retirement pension may be entitled to income support to help with the charges.
  882

  Weekly Expenditure

  Social Security Office

  Supplementary Pension/allowance

  Income Support

  6 May 1987

  31 May 1988

  £

  £

  Shaftsbury Square

  191,528·10

  205,144·63

  Shankill

  122,455·27

  142,669·75

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiry (5 per cent. sample)

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report the total amount of child benefit paid out per constituency for each of the Belfast parliamentary constituencies for the years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Public Expenditure Belfast
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he is able to make of the total amount of public expenditure per constituency for the four parliamentary constituencies in Belfast for the years 1982–83 to 1988–89 inclusive.

  Mr. Cope
  It is not possible for any reliable estimate of public expenditure per constituency in Belfast to be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) private and (b) public sector residential and nursing homes there are in Northern Ireland; what is the number of places provided in each sector together with the weekly charges; and how the charges are being met.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Up-to-date information about weekly charges in independent sector homes is not held centrally. Residents whose income is insufficient to meet the charges may be entitled to income support. As of 9 April 1990, the maximum weekly amounts of income support payable for accommodation and care range from £150 to £210 for homes for persons in need, and from £200 to £245 for nursing homes. In addition, a personal allowance of £10·55 is payable.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether in view of the increase in the number of residential and nursing homes for the elderly, he will arrange for greater involvement of local people in inspections of such homes and for reports of such inspections to be made to district councils and the units of management of the health and social services boards.
  883
  Mr. Needham
  In "People First", the Northern Ireland policy paper on care in the community in the 1990s, the Department of Health and Social Services has proposed that health and social services boards should set up area inspection units, independent of the day-to-day management of their own homes. They are to inspect and report on standards and quality of care in both statutory and independent sector homes and are to be accountable direct to the area general manager of the board. The units are to include inspectors recruited from outside the board's employment. The Department intends to issue detailed guidance on the establishment of such units and will consult a wide range of interests, including the boards and district councils, during its preparation. Furthermore proposals will issue shortly on the involvement of area health and social services councils in visiting such establishments.

  Local Government
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, following his consideration of responses to the local government consultative paper, he will be proceeding with legislation in the field of local government in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are proceeding with the preparation of a proposal for a draft Order in Council. It should be published for consultation before the end of this year. As indicated in the local government consultative paper, the measures proposed cover three areas of local government work:

  (i) the conduct of district council business;

  (ii) the administration of the environmental health and building control services; and

  (iii) competition in the provision of district council services

  We received over 60 responses to the local government consultative paper. All have been considered carefully. A number of changes to our proposals have been made as a result.

  The proposals were discussed by the chairmen of all the district councils in Northern Ireland, meeting under the chairmanship of Councillor Empey, the Lord Mayor of Belfast.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations are believed to have been responsible for the terrorist killings of Sam McClean and Harold Keys in the Irish Republic after 15 November 1985; and if anyone has been made amenable to the courts for these murders.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: Despite the best efforts of the Irish authorities I understand that no one has been made amenable to the courts for these callous murders. In the absence of a criminal conviction it is not possible to say who the murderers were, but in both cases the Provisional IRA is reported to have claimed responsibility.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations are believed to have been responsible for the terrorist killings of Cormac McCabe, John Reid, Stanley Hazelton and Seamus McAvoy in the Irish Republic prior to 15 November 1985; and if anyone has been made amendable to the courts for these murders.
  884
  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: Despite the best efforts of the Irish authorities I understand that no one has been made amenable to the courts for the callous murders of John Reid, Stanley Hazelton and Seamus McAvoy. The investigation into the murder of Cormac McCabe, which is believed to have taken place in Northern Ireland, was conducted by the RUC and has proved similarly inconclusive. In the absence of criminal convictions it is not possible to say who the murderers were, but in the cases of Mr. Reid and Mr. McAvoy the Provisional IRA is reported to have claimed responsibility.

  Fishing
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what means his view on the total allowable catch of each species of fish taken in the areas of sea fished by Northern Ireland sea fishermen is put forward at meetings of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea deals with scientific stock assessments which form the basis of advice to the EC Commission, which then formulates proposals for total allowable catches (TACs) to the EC Council of Ministers. The setting of TACs takes place outside the ICES forum.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will carry out a cost benefit analysis on options for placing(a) the new scientific staff for the research vessel Lough Foyle and (b) the new scientific staff for the research vessel Lough Foyle plus the freshwater biological units staff in Coleraine with the existing fisheries research laboratory staff in (i) the existing fisheries laboratory building with necessary alterations and (ii) in the existing fisheries laboratory building and the existing drainage division building in Coleraine with any necessary additions for extensions of the latter building.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: Practical options for the establishment of a unified aquatic sciences research division on a single site were subject to investment appraisal before a decision was reached to relocate staff from Coleraine-Antrim to Belfast.

  The option of a unified division at the fisheries research laboratory at Coleraine was included in the investment appraisal, except that the incorporation of the drainage division office at Coleraine was not considered a viable option in terms of department planning.

  Results of the appraisal showed that over a 25-year period, relocation of staff from Coleraine and Antrim to Belfast, and the location of the scientific staff from the research vessel on the same site would have the lowest discounted net cost compared with other options. This decision is now being put into effect. Further cost-benefit analyses are not contemplated.

  Detainees
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons(a) have been detained under terrorism provisions in police custody since October 1989 and (b) have been refused access to a solicitor under section 15 of the Emergency Provisions Act 1987.
  885
  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: Three hundred and sixty-one persons were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 between the period 1 October 1989 to 31 December 1989. No person was detained during this period under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987; and no one was refused access to a solicitor.

  Statistics in respect of 1990 are not yet available.

  Local Authority Funding
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show for each of the last five years the sums made available to promote each of the major towns in each of the 26 council areas; and what funds he intends to make available for this purpose over the next three years in each case.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  Belfast £

  Londonderry £

  Other district towns

  1986–87

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1987–88

  30,000

  nil

  nil

  1988–89

  74,000

  nil

  nil

  1989–90

  80,000

  4,000

  nil

  1990–91

  82,000

  4,000

  nil

  1991–92

  84,000

  10,000

  nil

  1992–93

  86,000

  25,000

  nil

  1993–94

  88,000

  10,000

  nil

  Lough Foyle
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what decrease there has been in the area of farms whose land borders on Lough Foyle between the estuary of the River Roe and Magilligan Point since statistics were first collected; and what is his estimate of the present-day value of the land lost during that period.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: The information requested is not available.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he(a) has had any survey carried out or (b) is aware of any other scientific survey of the intertidal zone off the shore of Lough Foyle between the estuary of the River Roe and Magilligan Point to determine whether that zone has experienced changes in the animal life and vegetation in the last 25 years; whether he has any record of changes in the type of beach from mud to sand; and what changes have been noted in the number and species of bird life in the area over these periods.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has not undertaken, nor is it aware of other bodies having undertaken, any survey to determine changes in the animal life or vegetation of the intertidal zone between the Roe estuary and Magilligan point. The Department did commission a survey of the intertidal fauna of the entire Northern Ireland coastline. This was a baseline survey and did not refer to any previous work.

  Bird counts have been undertaken by other bodies, but the Department does not have details of these counts and has no information on fluctuations in numbers of the various species. The Department does not have any record of changes in the type of beach from mud to sand.

  European Community Assistance
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the criteria which applicants will have to satisfy when applying for European grant assistance under each of the headings outlined in the Northern Ireland community support framework document.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The primary requirement for applicants is that their proposals should comply with the specific priorities identified by the EC Commission in its Community support framework for Northern Ireland. These call for: improvement of the physical and social environment; reduction in the effects of peripherality; diversification and strengthening of the industrial and tradeable services sectors; development of agriculture and tourism; and training to develop Northern Ireland's human resources. The funds available are, of course, limited, and proposals must also demonstrate value for money.

  The detailed project criteria form part of the various operational programmes currently being negotiated with the Commission. As these are agreed, the criteria will be made known to those wishing to put forward proposals. Work is also in hand on application guidelines which will be circulated to local partners, and to others on request.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the current negotiations between his Department and the European Commission in relation to European funding.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: Negotiations with the Commission on the Northern Ireland Community support framework were completed in December last year. Since then, negotiations continue on the content of the various earning programmes to be supported from our allocations from the three structural funds. Other, special. programmes may also be funded from outside member state allocations and officials are discussing with the Commission how Northern Ireland can best benefit from them. These measures include, of course, the transfrontier programme on which we and the Government of the Republic of Ireland are jointly negotiating with the Commission.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount of financial assistance received by(a) each Northern Ireland Government Department, (b) each district council in Northern Ireland and (c) other organisations from European Community sources, in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: Northern Ireland's largest single source of funding from the European Community is the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. However, the bulk of such receipts are centrally disbursed, by the intervention board for agricultural produce, and details of payments are not generally maintained on a regional basis. There are numerous other sources of EC grant and although, in most of these cases, figures for the Province as a whole are available they are not analysed on the basis sought. Nevertheless it has been possible to construct a table showing for the last three financial years (aggregated) the amounts of structural fund money

  887
  received by the various Northern Ireland departments, by the district council sector and by other bodies. The details are as follows:

  Financial Years

  Northern Ireland Departments

  DANI £ million

  DED £ million

  DOE £ million

  DHSS £ million

  DENI £ million

  District Councils £ million

  Others £ million

  Total £ million

  1987–88 to 1989–90

  24·1

  139·2

  18·4

  4·6

  23·5

  11·9

  81·2

  302·9

  (These figures are provisional; their accuracy depends upon 1989–90 receipts being finalised.)

  In so far as it would be feasible, the further detail requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cerebral Palsy
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many children are registered with the Eastern health and social services board who have cerebral palsy in the age groups(a) under five years, (b) five to 16 years, (c) 16 to 24 years and (d) 24 years and over;

  (2) how many children are registered with the Southern health and social services board who have cerebral palsy in the age groups (a) under five years, (b) five to 16 years, (c) 16 to 24 years and (d) 24 years and over.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: There is no requirement upon the health and social services boards to maintain registers of people suffering from cerebral palsy. Although various professional officers and departments hold relevant information, these records can be collated only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Government Finance (Rebates)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many single parent householders in Scotland are(a) in receipt of maximum 80 per cent. poll tax rebates and (b) eligible for poll tax rebate at less than the maximum rate in 1989–90;

  (2) how many single pensioners in Scotland are (a) receiving the maximum 80 per cent. poll tax rebates and (b) eligible for poll tax rebate at less than the maximum rate in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest estimates are in the table.

  Community Charge Rebates: Scotland 1989–90

  Number receiving maximum rebate

  Number receiving less than maximum rebate

  Single parent householders

  70,000

  10,000

  Single people aged 60 or over

  150,000

  100,000

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the estimate of the number of people in Scotland likely to take up their entitlement to poll tax rebate in 1989–90; and what sum of money was allocated for this purpose.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government do not make forecasts of the numbers entitled to benefits. Estimates of 888
  those entitled to community charge rebates will be able to be made retrospectively, when data from the relevant family expenditure survey becomes available. However, in the 1989–90 spring supply estimates (HC 231-XV 88-89) it was estimated that the number of charge payers in Scotland receiving community charge rebates was rather more than 1 million. The total local authority expenditure on rebates was estimated to be £201 million, of which £194 million was met through central Government subsidy.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate the number of people in(a) Alyn and Deeside, (b) Clwyd and (c) Wales who will qualify for poll tax rebate following the rise in the capital disregard to £16,000.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The models used by this Department produce estimates of the numbers of people expected to receive community charge benefit, not of numbers who may be eligible.

  (a) and (b)—Reliable estimates of number of recipients cannot be provided on the detailed regional basis requested by the hon. Member.

  (c)—The latest estimate of the number of individual chargepayers in Wales who will receive community charge benefit is 541,000 in 1990–91.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent on domestic rate rebates in Scotland in 1987–88 and 1988–89; how much was spent on poll tax rebates in Scotland in 1989–90; and what is planned expenditure on poll tax rebates in Scotland in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest estimate of spending on domestic rate rebates in Scotland is £212 million in 1987–88 and £168 million in 1988–89. The 1989–90 community charge rebate expenditure in Scotland is estimated to be £222 million and the planned expenditure for community charge benefit in 1990–91 is £232 million.

  Disability
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants would qualify for the severe disability premium if it were to be awarded to people receiving attendance allowance and who do not have a carer who receives invalid care allowances for looking after them.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make available to the House the report of the Minister with responsibility for the disabled on the groups he met and the projects he visited during his visit in 1989 to the United States of America.
  889
  Mr. Scott
  The purpose of my visit to the United States of America between 29 July 1989 and 3 August 1989 was to look at ways in which the Federal Government, state governments, welfare organisations and major employers were working to improve the quality of life for people with disabilities through education, health and employment programmes. I regret that a formal report of the visit is not available.

  Following meetings in New York, Washington, Baltimore and San Fransisco, my trip culminated in a visit to the California relay system (CRS) in Los Angeles. The CRS provides an unlimited access service which enables people with a hearing impairment to communicate via the telephone network with a hearing person, and is therefore operating on a similar way to the telephone exchange for the deaf operated by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf in London and Glasgow. Both the British and Californian systems provide a valuable service for people with a severe hearing impairment.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has received to "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The association has submitted a detailed written response, and it was represented at a meeting I held on 5 April with the Disability Benefits Consortium to discuss "The Way Ahead." We shall give careful consideration to all the association's comments in carrying forward the detailed work on our proposals.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much child benefit has been paid in each of the parliamentary constituencies of Wales for(a) 1983 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information relating to child benefit in Great Britain cannot be sub-divided beyond England, Scotland and Wales. The amount of child benefit expenditure for Wales is estimated to have been £204·4 million in 1983–84 and £234·0 million in 1988–89.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he proposes to extend the age restriction on qualification for mobility allowance beyond the present limits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We intend to incorporate mobility allowance in the new disability allowance from April 1992. Like mobility allowance, the disability allowance will be awarded only in respect of disability occurring before age 65, but there will be no upper age limit for payment provided the criteria continue to be met. When the disability allowance is introduced, we intend to remove the upper age limit for payment of mobility allowance to people who are already receiving it.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what alterations are envisaged in the introduction of the disability allowance to ensure an efficient assessment procedure and minimise distress to the claimant.
  890
  Mr. Scott
  We are considering the assessment procedures for the disability allowance. We shall be concerned to devise procedures which are efficient, and accessible and helpful to claimants.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average number of weeks that lapses between a claim and the date of notification of the decision to the claimant in respect of allowances for(a) mobility, (b) attendance and (c) severe disablement.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest available information is as follows:

  Weeks

  Mobility allowance (March)

  7·0

  Attendance allowance (March)

  7·6

  Severe disablement allowance (February)

  12·1

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time elapsing between a letter of appeal and refusal of mobility allowance and notification of the decision of the adjudicating medical authority.

  Mr. Scott
  The average time taken between receipt of an appeal to a medical board against a decision on a mobility allowance claim and notification of the decision is currently 11·6 weeks.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time elapsing between a letter of review after refusal of attendance allowance and notification of the decision of the attendance allowance board.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time which elapses between a letter of appeal against a refusal to severe disablement allowance or refusal of mobility allowance after a medical board and the medical appeal tribunal hearing.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest available figures are for the quarter ending on 30 September 1989. During that period, the average time taken between the date of lodgement of an appeal to a medical appeal tribunal and the hearing was 20·8 weeks for severe disablement allowance claims and 16·2 weeks for mobility allowance claims.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the reply of 2 April, if he will obtain from his Department's local management information on how many of his departmental staff in Bradford, since 1979, have been given permission exceptionally to hold a financial interest in private residential or nursing homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No members of staff have sought permission.

  Pensions
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the payment of state pensions by means of automatic cash dispensers.
  891
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no such plans.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from community charge payers in Barrow about advice by the Barrow district council concerning community charge benefit following the Budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No representations on any advice given by Barrow district council have so far been received.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the amount of community charge benefit which will accrue to a household, assuming that transitional relief does not apply, where the earnings of the couple are £160 and £50, respectively, the community charge is £420 per person and the said persons are(a) a married couple or (b) two persons not falling within the category of cohabiting or married couples; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Assuming the figures quoted refer to earnings net of tax and national insurance contributions,(a) a married couple with combined net earnings of £210 per week would not qualify for community charge benefit, and (b) of two single people not living together as husband and wife with net earnings of £160 and £50 per week respectively, the former would not qualify for community charge benefit and the other would qualify for £5·20 per week.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to adjust the arrangements for community charge benefit so that married couples who are both employed may be treated in the same way as persons living in the same accommodation who are not married and not regarded as cohabiting couples; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no such plans. The structure of community charge benefit is designed to ensure that the recipients' net income, after paying their community charge, is no lower than if they received income support. The assessment rules therefore follow those for income support in assessing married couples differently from two single people who are not living together as husband and wife.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, by regions and by amounts, as much information as is available to him about the take-up so far of poll tax benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department does not make forecasts of the number of people entitled to income-related benefits. Take-up estimates are made as and when they can be derived from historical survey data. Take-up estimates for community charge benefit will not be available before 1992.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the latest below average household income tables.
  892
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Within the next few weeks.

  Seafarers
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce a special social security scheme for those engaged in the seafaring industry.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to change the social security arrangements for those who work in the seafaring industry. Foreign-going mariners and share fishermen are already subject to special rules in respect of benefit entitlement and contribution liability.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much extra revenue would be raised by his Department if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions were abolished on the basis of existing scales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  If the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions were abolished it is estimated that the extra revenue raised at current rates would be £2·45 billion. This assumes that an upper limit would be retained for contracting-out and that all contributions above that limit would be at the full not contracted-out rate.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much revenue would be raised if national insurance contributions were chargeable at current rates on investment income above a national insurance contribution threshold of £3,500.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  If national insurance contributions were charged at the employees' main percentage rate of 9 per cent. on all investment income over £3,500 per year, including that of pensioners, it is estimated that the revenue raised at current rates would be about £1·53 billion. This estimate is based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and is therefore provisional.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to a pensioner with an investment income of(a) £5,000, (b) £10,000 and (c) £1,000 as a result of the imposition of national insurance contributions on all investment income at current rates of national insurance contributions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Pensioners do not currently pay national insurance contributions, but if such contributions were charged at the employees' main percentage rate of 9 per cent. on all investment income the cost to a pensioner would be as shown in the table.

  Investment income (£)

  National insurance contribution (£)

  5,000

  450

  10,000

  900

  1,000

  90

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to a pensioner with an investment income of(a) £3,500, (b) £5,000 and

  893
  (c) £10,000 as a result of imposing national insurance contribution charges on all investment income above £3,000 and above £3,500.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Pensioners do not currently pay national insurance contributions but if such contributions were charged at the employees' main percentage rate of 9 per cent. on all investment income above £3,000 and above £3,500 the cost to a pensioner would be as shown in the table.

  National Insurance contributions

  Investment income

  Ceiling of £3,000

  Ceiling of £3,500

  £

  £

  £

  3,500

  45

  nil

  5,000

  180

  135

  10,000

  630

  585

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the total cost, per week, to individuals on(a) 1·5, (b) two, (c) 2·5 and (d) three times average incomes, if the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions were abolished on the basis of the existing scales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The table shows the extra cost per week to the individuals concerned assuming that an upper limit was retained for contracting out and that all contributions above that limit would be at the full not contracted-out rate.

  Average male full time1 earnings

  Extra cost per week £

  X 1·5 (£450)

  9·00

  X 2 (£600)

  22·50

  X 2·5 (£750)

  36·00

  X 3 (£900)

  49·50

  1 Assumed as £300 in 1990–91 for illustrative purposes.

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what assumptions as to the number of people qualifying for radiation exposure payments and the rates of such payments the estimated cost of the proposed new clause 8 to the Social Security Bill given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 28 March,Official Report, columns 636-37, was based.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  For the purposes of the estimate, it was assumed that 1,000 people might be eligible under the terms of the proposed new clause and that payments would be equivalent to the maximum allowable rates of industrial injuries benefits.

  Unemployment Cost
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate for the total costs to the Exchequer of the average unemployed adult including payment of benefits, lost taxes and other taxes.
  894
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: In 1989–90 the estimated average weekly benefit cost for unemployed people receiving benefit was £61·80. Estimates of tax revenue forgone are not available.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the value of single payments made between(a) April 1988 and March 1989, and (b) between April 1989 and the most recent practicable date, in each case both as a total sum and by DSS regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: The regional variations and total amounts of single payment awards made between April 1988 and March 1989 and April 1989 and February 1990 are shown in the table.

  April 1988 to March 1989 £

  April 1989 to February 1990 £

  North-East

  5,893,635

  13,742

  Midlands

  6,486,899

  38,729

  London North

  3,818,883

  19,408

  London South

  3,252,343

  10,807

  Wales and South-Western

  3,426,565

  10,622

  North-West

  11,014,049

  66,815

  Scotland

  18,517,967

  73,779

  Totals

  52,410,341

  233,902

  Spending Power
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures, similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for a lone mother with two children aged four and six years under the benefit system as uprated in April 1990 and in each of the following circumstances(a) not working, after one year on benefits, (b) earning £20 a week from part-time working and (c) working full-time and earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90,(v) £100, (vi) £110 and (vii) £120 per week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: The information is in the tables. It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use hypothetical rents so they do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can pay.

  Single person with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Net Income (after housing costs) (£Pw)

  (a) Not working1

  76·22

  (b) Earning £20 per week part-time

  91·22

  1 There is no longer a difference in the amount of benefit paid after one year.

  895

  (c)—Earnings and benefits family head in full-time work as at April 1990

  Single person with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Basic tax rate = 25 per cent.

  Tax threshold=£90·87

  Total net income on income support =£106·41

  Net income after rent and community charge on income support=£76·22

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Community charge

  Community charge rebate

  Net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  Deduction rate(per cent.)

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  52·70

  20·10

  23·48

  0·00

  6·71

  0·00

  130·62

  100·43

  73·0

  70·00

  0·00

  3·08

  66·92

  46·33

  20·10

  23·48

  0·00

  6·71

  0·00

  133·35

  103·16

  73·0

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  39·96

  20·10

  23·48

  0·00

  6·71

  0·00

  136·08

  103·89

  73·0

  90·00

  0·00

  4·88

  85·12

  33·59

  20·10

  23·48

  0·00

  6·71

  0·00

  138·81

  108·62

  74·0

  100·00

  2·28

  5·78

  91·94

  28·81

  20·10

  23·48

  0·00

  6·71

  0·00

  140·85

  110·66

  80·0

  110·00

  4·78

  6·68

  98·54

  24·19

  20·10

  23·48

  0·00

  6·71

  0·00

  142·83

  112·64

  80·0

  120·00

  7·28

  7·58

  105·14

  19·57

  20·10

  23·48

  0·00

  6·71

  0·00

  144·81

  114·62

  80·0

  Notes to tables:

  1. Based on methods and assumptions used in Tax Benefit Model Tables.

  2. A community charge of £350 for each adult is assumed throughout.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables, similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for each of a single wage married couple(a) with two children aged four and six years and (b) with three children aged three, eight and eleven years, earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110, (vii) £120, (viii) £130, (ix) £140, (x) £150, (xi) £160, and (xii) £170 under the benefit system as uprated in April.

  (a)—Earnings and benefits family head in full-time work as at April 1990

  Married couple with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Table II

  Basic tax rate= 25 per cent.

  Tax threshold=£90·87

  Total net income on income support= £128·58

  Net income after rent and community charge on income support=£91·68

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Community charge

  Community charge rebate

  Net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  Deduction rate (per cent.)

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  52·70

  14·50

  23·48

  6·99

  13·42

  6·93

  138·94

  102·04

  95·0

  70·00

  0·00

  3·08

  66·92

  46·33

  14·50

  23·48

  5·22

  13·42

  6·52

  139·49

  102·59

  95·0

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  39·96

  14·50

  23·48

  3·44

  13·42

  6·11

  140·03

  103·13

  94·0

  90·00

  0·00

  4·88

  85·12

  33·59

  14·50

  23·48

  1·67

  13·42

  5·70

  140·58

  103·68

  95·0

  100·00

  2·28

  5·78

  91·94

  28·81

  14·50

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  5·40

  140·65

  103·75

  83·0

  110·00

  4·78

  6·68

  98·54

  24·19

  14·50

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  5·10

  142·33

  105·43

  83·0

  120·00

  7·28

  7·58

  105·14

  19·57

  14·50

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  4·80

  144·01

  107·11

  83·0

  130·00

  9·78

  8·48

  111·74

  14·95

  14·50

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  4·50

  145·69

  108·79

  82·0

  140·00

  12·28

  9·38

  118·34

  10·33

  14·50

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  4·21

  147·38

  110·48

  83·0

  150·00

  14·78

  10·28

  124·91

  5·71

  14·50

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  3·91

  149·06

  112·16

  83·0

  160·00

  17·28

  11·18

  131·54

  1·09

  14·50

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  3·61

  150·74

  113·84

  83·0

  170·00

  19·78

  12·08

  138·14

  0·00

  14·50

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  2·79

  155·43

  118·53

  44·0

  (b)—Earnings and benefits family head in full-time work as at April 1990

  Married couple with 3 children aged 3, 8 and 11

  Table II

  Basic tax rate=25 per cent.

  Tax threshold=£90·87

  Total net income on income support=£149·68

  Net income after rent and community charge on income support=£112·78

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Community charge

  Community charge rebate

  Net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  Deduction rate (per cent.)

  60·00

  0·00

  2·18

  57·82

  66·85

  21·75

  23·48

  4·94

  13·42

  6·42

  157·82

  120·92

  94·0

  70·00

  0·00

  3·08

  66·92

  60·48

  21·75

  23·48

  3·17

  13·42

  6·05

  158·37

  121·47

  95·0

  80·00

  0·00

  3·98

  76·02

  54·11

  21·75

  23·48

  1·40

  13·42

  5·64

  158·92

  122·02

  95·0

  90·00

  0·00

  4·88

  85·12

  47·74

  21·75

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  5·23

  159·84

  122·94

  78·0

  100·00

  2·28

  5·78

  91·94

  42·96

  21·75

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  4·92

  161·57

  124·67

  83·0

  110·00

  4·78

  6·68

  98·54

  38·34

  21·75

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  4·63

  163·26

  126·36

  83·0

  120·00

  7·28

  7·58

  105·14

  33·72

  21·75

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  4·33

  164·94

  128·04

  83·0

  130·00

  9·78

  8·48

  111·74

  29·10

  21·75

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  4·03

  166·62

  129·72

  83·0

  140·00

  12·28

  9·38

  118·34

  24·48

  21·75

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  3·74

  168·31

  131·41

  83·0

  150·00

  14·78

  10·28

  124·94

  19·86

  21·75

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  3·44

  169·99

  133·09

  83·0

  896
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: The information is in the tables. It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use hypothetical rents, so they do not reflect the full range of housing cost which people can pay.
  897

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Community charge

  Community charge rebate

  Net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  Deduction rate (per cent.)

  160·00

  17·28

  11·18

  131·54

  15·24

  21·75

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  3·14

  171·67

  134·77

  83·0

  170·00

  19·78

  12·08

  138·14

  10·62

  21·75

  23·48

  0·00

  13·42

  2·84

  173·35

  136·45

  83·0

  Notes to tables (a) and (b):

  1. Based on methods and assumptions used in tax benefit model tables.

  2. A community charge of £350 for each adult is assumed throughout.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many members of police forces have been dismissed or required to resign for racially discriminatory behaviour since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Statistics are not collected about the use in disciplinary proceedings of specific items in the police discipline code. It is not therefore possible to say how many officers have been found guilty of racially discriminatory behaviour, or how they were punished. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Male Prisoners (Night Attire)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what night attire is provided for male prisoners.

  Mr. Mellor
  Pyjamas are available for those inmates who wish to wear them.

  Disciplinary Adjudications (Prisons)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects a report will be published on the experiment in three prisons whereby legally qualified clerks attended disciplinary adjudications.
  Mr. Mellor: A pilot scheme to provide qualified clerks to assist at board of visitors' adjudications is under way in 13 establishments and is being independently monitored. We expect to receive a report of that monitoring by the beginning of 1991 and hope then to publish it.

  Penal Establishments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether research is being undertaken to ascertain the number of people released from long-stay mental hospitals who are in prison department establishments.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Home Office has commissioned no research specifically on that precise issue but has granted facilities at Leeds prison to assist the Leeds Eastern health authority in one of its projects to ascertain what happens to former long-stay patients.

  The extensive checklist used by the research team from the Institute of Psychiatry, university of London, commissioned to produce a psychiatric profile of the sentenced prison population includes the question of in-patient psychiatric history. The institute is scheduled to submit its report at the end of the year.

  Overseas Residents
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate, by country, the number of overseas residents who are eligible to register to vote in British general elections.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The table gives an estimate of the number of British citizens living in each country who are likely to have spent fewer than 20 years there. The figures may include people who left the United Kingdom more than 20 years ago, or who were not registered as electors in the United Kingdom when they left as adults, and so do not qualify to register as overseas electors.

  Estimates of the number of British citizens who have lived in each country abroad for less than 20 years.

  Country

  Number

  Algeria

  210

  Angola

  40

  Antigua

  50

  Argentina

  2,500

  Ascension

  160

  Australia

  550,000

  Austria

  4,500

  Bahamas

  2,500

  Bahrain

  5,500

  Bangladesh

  410

  Barbados

  2,000

  Belgium

  20,000

  Belize

  300

  Bermuda

  3,500

  Bolivia

  150

  Botswana

  4,000

  Brazil

  6,550

  Brunei

  1,450

  Bulgaria

  60

  Burma

  30

  Canada

  1,025,000

  Canary Islands

  22,500

  Cayman Islands

  2,000

  Chile

  1,250

  China

  480

  Colombia

  1,000

  Congo

  60

  Costa Rica

  200

  Cuba

  10

  Cyprus

  8,000

  Czechoslovakia

  30

  Denmark

  8,000

  East Germany

  70

  Ecuador

  480

  Egypt

  2,200

  E1 Salvador

  60

  Ethiopia

  300

  Falkland Islands

  500

  Fiji

  400

  Finland

  300

  France

  315,000

  Gabon

  200

  Gambia

  30

  Ghana

  500

  899

  Country

  Number

  Gibraltar

  5,500

  Greece

  9,000

  Grenada

  300

  Guatemala

  20

  Guinea

  50

  Guinea-Bissau

  20

  Guyana

  150

  Honduras

  180

  Hong Kong

  18,000

  Hungary

  450

  Iceland

  400

  India

  6,980

  Indonesia

  2,500

  Iraq

  1,000

  Israel

  50,000

  Italy

  28,800

  Ivory Coast

  9,300

  Jamaica

  1,500

  Japan

  200

  Jordan

  1,000

  Kenya

  8,000

  Kiribati

  45

  Korea

  480

  Kuwait

  6,000

  Lebanon

  320

  Lesotho

  360

  Liberia

  400

  Libya

  4,500

  Luxembourg

  2,000

  Macao

  90

  Madagascar

  100

  Malawi

  4,000

  Malaysia

  2,340

  Malta

  2,000

  Mauritius

  690

  Mexico

  1,300

  Mongolia

  10

  Montserrat

  20

  Morocco

  440

  Mozambique

  500

  Nepal

  500

  Netherlands

  20,000

  New Zealand

  750,000

  Nicaragua

  250

  Nigeria

  4,700

  North Yemen

  70

  Norway

  6,500

  Oman

  4,500

  Pakistan

  550

  Panama

  20

  Papau New Guinea

  4,000

  Paraquay

  150

  Peru

  500

  Phillipines

  910

  Poland

  100

  Portugal

  9,000

  Qatar

  4,000

  Republic of Ireland

  150,000

  Rumania

  2

  St. Helena

  100

  St. Kitts

  100

  St. Lucia

  400

  St. Vincent

  160

  Saudi Arabia

  23,000

  Senegal

  90

  Seychelles

  300

  Singapore

  5,000

  Solomon Islands

  400

  Somalia

  150

  South Africa

  210,000

  South Korea

  800

  Spain

  59,000

  Sri Lanka

  1,000

  Sudan

  1,000

  Swaziland

  2,000

  Sweden

  10,000

  Switzerland

  22,050

  Syria

  400

  900

  Country

  Number

  Tanzania

  1,360

  Thailand

  2,000

  Tonga

  100

  Trinidad

  600

  Tunisia

  200

  Turkey

  1,000

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  200

  Uganda

  670

  United Arab Emirates

  23,500

  Uruguay

  120

  USA

  470,000

  USSR

  800

  Vanuatu

  450

  Venezuela

  2,000

  Vietnam

  20

  Virgin Islands

  350

  West Germany

  59,300

  Yugoslavia

  200

  Zaire

  200

  Zambia

  4,700

  Zimbabwe

  5,000

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many overseas residents, by country, are currently registered to vote in British elections; and if he will give the equivalent figures for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of attestations of overseas electors' declarations carried out by consular officials in each country is available centrally for 1986, the first year of operation of the overseas franchise introduced by the Representation of the People Act 1985, and is given in the following table; this information is not available for subsequent years. The total number in 1986 was slightly greater than the total number who were registered that year (11,100), since a number of declarations were either not received by the electoral registration officer or were rejected.

  Overseas electors, 1986

  Country

  Number of attestations

  Afghanistan

  9

  Algeria

  7

  Angola

  4

  Anguilla

  3

  Antigua and Barbuda

  18

  Argentina

  2

  Australia

  228

  Austria

  78

  Bahamas

  71

  Bahrain

  127

  Bangladesh

  22

  Barbados

  31

  Belgium

  324

  Belize

  7

  Bermuda

  34

  Bolivia

  3

  Botswana

  142

  Brazil

  74

  Brunei

  127

  Bulgaria

  4

  Burma

  3

  Cameroon

  19

  Canada

  52

  Cayman Island

  34

  Chile

  5

  China

  63

  Colombia

  5

  Congo

  1

  901

  Country

  Number of attestations

  Costa Rica

  8

  Cuba

  2

  Cyprus

  193

  Czechoslovakia

  2

  Denmark

  36

  Dominica

  5

  Ecuador

  8

  Egypt

  83

  Equatorial Guinea

  1

  Ethiopia

  36

  Falkland Islands

  24

  Fiji

  57

  Finland

  14

  France

  507

  Gabon

  24

  Gambia

  11

  German Democratic Republic

  2

  Federal Republic of Germany

  344

  Ghana

  33

  Gibraltar

  14

  Greece

  148

  Grenada

  10

  Guatemala

  4

  Guyana

  6

  Hong Kong

  304

  Iceland

  1

  India

  43

  Indonesia

  145

  Iran

  6

  Iraq

  34

  Ireland, Republic of

  58

  Israel

  54

  Italy

  222

  Ivory Coast

  21

  Jamaica

  36

  Japan

  114

  Jordan

  47

  Kenya

  179

  Kiribati

  331

  Korea, Republic of

  44

  Kuwait

  135

  Lesotho

  40

  Liberia

  20

  Luxembourg

  46

  Madagascar

  4

  Malawi

  54

  Malaysia

  147

  Malta

  59

  Mauritius

  18

  Mexico

  15

  Mongolia

  1

  Montserrat

  2

  Morocco

  15

  Mozambique

  14

  Nepal

  43

  Netherlands

  243

  New Zealand

  141

  Nigeria

  80

  Norway

  138

  Oman

  332

  Pakistan

  37

  Papua New Guinea

  215

  Paraguay

  9

  Peru

  45

  Philippines

  62

  Poland

  18

  Portugal

  113

  Qatar

  193

  St. Helena

  8

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  2

  St. Vincent

  15

  Saudi Arabia

  811

  Senegal

  38

  Seychelles

  10

  Sierra Leone

  55

  Singapore

  284

  Solomon Islands

  36

  902

  Country

  Number of attestations

  Somalia

  2

  South Africa

  499

  Soviet Union

  11

  Spain

  1,532

  Sri Lanka

  38

  Sudan

  14

  Swaziland

  23

  Sweden

  53

  Switzerland

  206

  Syria

  2

  Tanzania

  82

  Thailand

  84

  Tonga

  2

  Trinidad and Tobago

  23

  Tunisia

  15

  Turkey

  45

  Uganda

  35

  United Arab Emirates

  459

  United States of America

  656

  Uruguay

  4

  Vanuatu

  13

  Venezuela

  19

  Virgin Islands (British)

  2

  Yemen Arab Republic

  26

  Yemen, Peoples Democratic Republic

  6

  Yugoslavia

  5

  Zaire

  18

  Zambia

  102

  Zimbabwe

  92

  12,266

  Security Industry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the working group on the self-regulation of the security industry submitted its report; and whether he will place this report in the Library.

  Mr. John Patten
  The working group submitted its report last July. Its recommendations are being considered within the Home Office.

  Racially Motivated Crimes
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought in each of the past 15 years for each category of racially motivated crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not collected on the number of prosecutions for offences which were racially motivated. The research and planning unit of the Home Office published in 1989 a paper, No. 54, on "Racially motivated incidents reported to the police", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Cheltenham Conference (Security)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the cost of the policing operation to protect the Prime Minister when she addressed the Conservative party in Cheltenham on 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire that the estimated additional cost of policing the Conservative party conference in Cheltenham was £120,000 over the three days.

  Leicestershire Police Authority
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional support he is proposing to offer the Leicestershire police authority to meet its extra policing requirements.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has approved 53 additional police posts for the Leicestershire constabulary for 1990–91. The police authority has applied for 25 police posts for 1991–92. This will be considered, with the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, along with the applications from other police authorities. The aim is to announce decisions on force increases in the autumn.

  Vehicle Removal
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East of 30 March,Official Report, column 373, if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the daily average of vehicles recorded as parked unlawfully in Green street and Katherine road in the London borough of Newham and as to whether he has any proposals to increase the number which are removed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that no specific records are kept of the average number of unlawfully parked vehicles in these roads.

  Routine enforcement action is undertaken by traffic wardens and police officers, usually by issue of a fixed penalty notice. However, there will be many instances where illegally parked vehicles will be driven away before an officer is able to issue a notice.

  The removal of illegally parked vehicles will continue to be arranged subject to traffic conditions and the availability of resources. There are no plans at present to increase the number of vehicle removals in the specified roads.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now reply to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Gower on 5 March regarding staffing at Swansea prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  I replied to the hon. Member on 6 April.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now reply to the letter sent to him on 24 February by the hon. Member for Gower regarding his constituent from West Cross, Swansea.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I replied to the hon. Member on 5 April.

  Serious Disorder, London
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to make an early decision as to whether events on Saturday 31 March in London constituted a riot for Riot Damages Act purposes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The receiver for the Metropolitan police district is satisfied that the terms of the Riot 904
  (Damages) Act 1886 apply. The Metropolitan police announced on 2 April that any person who believed that they had a claim for damage to a house, shop or building or any property in such premises should make a claim to the receiver, G9 branch, 2 Bessborough street, London SW1V 2JF within 14 days of the disturbance on 31 March, or submit notice of intention to make such a claim.

  Parking Offences
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many motor vehicles were towed away for fixed penalty offences in London in 1989;

  (2) how many motor vehicles were wheel-clamped in London in 1989;

  (3) how many vehicles towed away in London in 1989 were towed away for (a) dangerous parking, (b) obstruction, (c) restricted street offences, (d) parking in designated parking bays and (e) parking in residents' parking bays;

  (4) how many vehicles wheel-clamped in London in 1989 were clamped for (a) dangerous parking, (b) obstruction, (c) restricted street offences, (d) parking in designated parking bays and (e) parking in residents' parking bays.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that during 1989 a total of 149,666 vehicles were wheel-clamped and 116,315 vehicles were removed for illegal parking in London.

  Information about the number of vehicles wheel-clamped or removed for specific offences could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  As a matter of police policy, fixed penalty notices are issued to all vehicles before wheel-clamping. In the case of vehicles which are removed for parking offences, although the great majority are issued with a fixed penalty notice, there are certain circumstances where the issue of a fixed penalty is not appropriate because of the seriousness of the offence.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are used by the Metropolitan police for the priorities for the wheel-clamping and removal of motor vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Wheel-clamping and vehicle removal operations are used by the Metropolitan police as an aid to the enforcement of parking regulations.

  Guidelines are issued to all officers engaged on these duties. In areas where wheel-clamping is authorised, any offending vehicle may be clamped or removed. Police officers are expected to exercise discretion as to whether wheel-clamping or removal is the desirable course of action dependent upon prevailing circumstances. A vehicle would not normally be clamped if it is parked in a position which causes serious obstruction or danger to other road users, or if it is parked in a bus lane, bus stop or cab rank, on the approach to or exit from a pedestrian crossing, adjacent to a fire exit or across an access used by emergency vehicles or leading to private premises.

  In order of priority, enforcement action is concentrated on those vehicles which are causing danger, obstruction, parked illegally in restricted areas or parked illegally in permitted parking places.

  Personal Injury
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage of all crimes represented by crimes of violence and of road accidents involving personal injury in each of the county police areas in England and Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Waddington
  The information requested on crimes of violence is given in the following table. Information on road accidents is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.

  Violence against the person as a percentage of total recorded crime in non-metropolitan police force areas.

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Percentages

  Avon and Somerset

  3·3

  3·3

  3·5

  4·1

  5·0

  Bedfordshire

  4·9

  4·4

  4·7

  5·0

  5·2

  Cambridgeshire

  3·8

  4·0

  4·6

  4·9

  5·8

  Cheshire

  4·2

  4·1

  4·3

  5·0

  5·4

  Cleveland

  3·6

  3·4

  3·7

  4·1

  4·1

  Cumbria

  3·8

  3·7

  4·8

  5·7

  6·3

  Derbyshire

  4·6

  4·7

  5·2

  6·6

  6·7

  Devon and Cornwall

  3·8

  3·6

  3·9

  4·8

  5·0

  Dorset

  2·7

  2·6

  3·1

  3·5

  3·5

  Durham

  3·8

  3·7

  4·5

  4·9

  5·2

  Dyfed-Powys

  4·5

  5·0

  5·4

  6·3

  8·2

  Essex

  3·8

  3·6

  4·4

  5·5

  5·0

  Gloucestershire

  3·1

  3·1

  2·9

  3·5

  3·7

  Gwent

  5·5

  5·4

  6·0

  7·3

  7·8

  Hampshire

  3·2

  3·3

  3·4

  4·0

  4·1

  Hertfordshire

  3·4

  3·4

  3·9

  4·5

  4·5

  Humberside

  5·3

  5·0

  5·6

  6·2

  6·3

  Kent

  2·9

  3·2

  3·8

  4·1

  4·5

  Lancashire

  2·9

  2·7

  3·1

  3·4

  3·2

  Leicestershire

  4·4

  4·3

  4·6

  5·2

  5·1

  Lincolnshire

  4·1

  3·7

  4·2

  4·9

  5·2

  Norfolk

  2·9

  2·7

  3·4

  4·2

  4·1

  Northamptonshire

  3·8

  4·3

  4·8

  5·4

  5·4

  North Yorkshire

  3·1

  3·6

  3·8

  4·4

  5·0

  North Wales

  4·8

  4·7

  5·3

  6·2

  6·5

  Nottinghamshire

  5·6

  5·7

  6·2

  6·4

  6·9

  South Wales

  2·8

  2·8

  3·1

  3·3

  3·8

  Staffordshire

  7·4

  6·8

  7·0

  7·9

  8·7

  Suffolk

  4·2

  4·0

  4·8

  5·1

  5·4

  Surrey

  4·0

  3·9

  4·9

  5·5

  5·2

  Sussex

  3·1

  3·4

  3·6

  4·0

  4·4

  Thames Valley

  3·0

  2·9

  3·3

  3·8

  3·7

  Warwickshire

  3·3

  3·4

  3·6

  4·4

  4·5

  West Mercia

  4·3

  4·4

  4·5

  5·4

  6·0

  Wiltshire

  4·9

  4·7

  5·8

  6·2

  7·2

  Probation Service
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the discussion paper on the probation service and the independent sector, foreshadowed in chapter 10 of the Green Paper, "Supervision and Punishment in the Community", will be available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The discussion paper "Partnership in Dealing with Offenders in the Community" was published yesterday; a copy has been placed in the Library. It has been distributed to probation services and other criminal justice agencies, and to a wide range of voluntary and other organisations. Further individual copies may be obtained, free of charge, by writing to:

  Room 440

  Criminal Justice and Constitutional Department

  Home Office

  50 Queen Anne's Gate

  London SW1H 9AT

  Tyre Dumps (Fires)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency plans exist to deal with a major fire at a major tyre dump in Britain.

  Mr. Waddington
  It is the duty of each fire authority to make provision for firefighting purposes in its area, and to ensure that its fire brigade has adequate and efficient fire cover arrangements. These would include contingency plans for all significant fire risks such as those inherent in major tyre dumps for which the fire service has available special techniques. Typically, a comprehensive contingency plan would also detail arrangements for liaising with the police and the other emergency services, and for the evacuation of the area should the situation require it.

  Rule 43 Prisoners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate a review of the policy of holding prisoners subject to rule 43 protection in the same buildings as other prisoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Prisoners segregated under rule 43 for their own protection are housed in separate buildings where it is practicable to do so. At most establishments, however, this is not feasible because of the relatively small numbers of such prisoners and the need to make maximum use of the limited accommodation available.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what power the Police Complaints Authority has to investigate events occurring before its establishment in April 1984.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gives the Police Complaints Authority no investigative powers, but vests it with considerable powers to supervise investigations into complaints or, in some circumstances, into incidents which have not been the subject of a complaint. The Act precludes the authority from supervising the investigation of any matter which occurred before its establishment on 29 April 1984.

  Police Equipment
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide full details of the names and sponsors of the international police equipment conference.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The international police exhibition and conference (IPEC) is organised by a private company, Major Exhibitions and Conferences Ltd., for which my right hon. and learned Friend has no responsibility.

  Fraud Squads
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in respect of the fraud squad within each police force in England and Wales (i) the number of officers allocated to the fraud squad, (ii) the number of fraud squad officers as a percentage of the total number of police officers in each force, (iii) the planned numbers in the fraud squad for each force up to
  907
  the year 2000, (iv) the number of prosecutions for fraud for the latest available date, (v) the number of convictions for fraud for the latest available date and (vi) the amount spent on computer hardware and software during the year 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The future allocation of officers to specific duties is an operational matter for each chief officer of police. Information on computer expenditure by fraud squads is not available and would be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question on 30 March 1990 at column 631 for the remainder of the information requested.

  Radio Stations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the new franchises which the shadow Radio Authority has advertised for in respect of(a) the numbers of franchises to be issued and (b) the date when the franchises are to take effect;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the recent announcement by the Independent Broadcasting Authority that it is inviting letters of intent for new radio franchises.

  Mr. Mellor
  The shadow Radio Authority has invited letters of intent from prospective licensees to assist in the process of drawing up a plan for the introduction of new independent stations. This exercise will give the authority an indication of the geographical spread of demand for new services, and the nature of that demand. The number of new licences which will be advertised in due course will be determined by factors such as local audience demand, financial viability, frequency availability and the extent to which the range and diversity of listener choice would be enhanced. In the course of the 1990s several hundred new services of various sizes could gradually emerge across the country. Advertising of licences for specific services will start when the Radio Authority is formally established in January 1991, if Parliament approves the provisions of the Broadcasting Bill.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the proposed licence fee for the radio stations franchised by the shadow Radio Authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Bill the Radio Authority will be expected to receive its income from licence fee revenue. The authority aims to operate a differential scale of fees for the various services which it will license, but has yet to determine what those fees should be. We propose to amend the Broadcasting Bill in order to require the Radio Authority to publish its tariff of licence fees.

  Detective Inspector Paul Matthews
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Chief Constable of the West Midlands for a report as to whether any complaint has been received against former Detective Inspector Paul Matthews regarding his role in the case against Malcolm Herring.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that such a complaint has been received, and that it is being investigated by the 908
  team led by Mr. Donald Shaw, Assistant Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority.

  Prisoners' Earnings
  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the average weekly earnings of prisoners in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  Following a recent increase in inmates' earnings, it is estimated that average weekly pay in 1990–91 for inmates in England and Wales (including those who are unoccupied) will be about £2·80. All convicted inmates, as well as those unconvicted inmates who offer themselves for work, receive a basic weekly payment of £1·75 whether occupied or not. A range of flat-rate, piece-rate and incentive pay schemes provide opportunities to earn up to a maximum of £5·87 per week in certain workshops and kitchens.

  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the average and (b) the maximum weekly earnings of a prisoner undertaking group I, group II and group III employment, respectively.

  Mr. Mellor
  With effect from 9 April 1990, the weekly rates under the flat rate scheme for inmates in England and Wales are as follows:

  Average £

  Maximum £

  Group I

  2·95

  3·55

  Group II

  2·75

  3·35

  Group III

  2·55

  3·15

  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the hourly overtime rate for prisoners' work.

  Mr. Mellor
  The rate is 8p.

  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly rate of earnings paid to prisoners for whom no work is available.

  Mr. Mellor
  With effect from 9 April 1990, £1·75.

  Extradition
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list (i) those countries within the European Community which will extradite their nationals to the United Kingdom when charged with fraud-related offences committed here and (ii) those countries within the European Community to which the United Kingdom would extradite British nationals resident here to face charges of fraud committed in those countries.

  Mr. John Patten
  Fraud is included as an extraditable offence in all the bilateral treaties between the United Kingdom and the other members of the European Community, and is also covered by the backing of warrants procedure which operates between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  The United Kingdom, which has very limited extra-territorial jurisdiction, is prepared (subject to the circumstances of the case and our treaty arrangements

  909
  with the country concerned) to extradite United Kingdom nationals to stand trial in the place where the offence was committed. This contrasts with the position in many civil law countries, which have wide extra-territorial powers to prosecute for offences committed outside their territory, but which are restricted constitutionally from extraditing their own nationals. The United Kingdom's extradition arrangements with the member countries of the European Community reflect this difference of approach.

  Under the treaties with Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Portugal and Spain, the United Kingdom may extradite nationals to stand trial abroad, but those countries have discretion to refuse the extradition of their nationals here. The Netherlands are in a broadly similar position, although an amendment to their domestic law in 1981 now permits the extradition of a Dutch national here if the Dutch authorities are satisfied that there is sufficient guarantee that the offender would be returned to serve any prison sentence in the Netherlands. The Luxembourg treaty expressly prohibits the extradition of their nationals, while allowing United Kingdom nationals to be extradited there. Three further treaties, with Denmark, Greece and Italy, prohibit the extradition of nationals in either direction, so that the United Kingdom cannot at present extradite United Kingdom nationals to those countries. (This limitation on United Kingdom freedom of action will be removed later this year when the United Kingdom ratifies the European convention on extradition, which will take the place of existing extradition treaties with convention countries.) There are no restrictions on the extradition of nationals in either direction between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Neil Larkman
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the inquest into the death of Neil Larkman at Swansea prison on 4 November has not yet taken place; and why the original date was deferred.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The conduct of an inquest is a matter for the coroner, who has informed me that the inquest into the death of Neil Larkman began on 22 March when the evidence of several witnesses was heard. The hearing was then adjourned at the request of solicitors acting for Mr. Larkman's family because two witnesses failed to appear. The coroner has now issued subpoenas for their attendance at a resumed hearing on 3 May.

  Armley Prison
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were in Armley Prison on the night of Monday, 2 April and Tuesday 3 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  On the mornings of Tuesday 3 April and Wednesday 4 April 1,311 and 1,273 prisoners respectively were held at Her Majesty's prison Leeds. Population figures are not collated separately for the evening.

  Manchester Prison
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners during the recent disturbances at Her Majesty's prison, Manchester escaped outside prison boundaries; and how many of such prisoners were recaptured.
  910
  Mr. Mellor
  No prisoners have escaped from Manchester prison during the recent incident.

  Bramham Moor Hunt
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into the circumstances resulting in the deaths of four horses at the Bramham moor hunt's point-to-point meeting at Wetherby racecourse on Saturday 31 March.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: No. These are matters for the responsible authorities.

  Victim Support, Newcastle
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards victim support schemes in east Newcastle.

  Mr John Patten
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: The Home Office pays grant in aid (£3·7 million in 1989–90 and £4·5 million subject to parliamentary approval this year) to Victim Support headquarters for the benefit of local victim support schemes. The grant is administered by the funding panel of Victim Support in accordance with agreed criteria which provide for payment of salaries or running costs. I understand that salaries grant is paid for two posts in the east Newcastle scheme. Responsibility for the funding of one of these posts was taken over from the local authority from 1 April 1989.

TRANSPORT

  Maritime Safety
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has prepared a paper for presentation to the International Maritime Organisation requesting urgent consideration of the application of a revised standard of damage stability to all existing roll-on roll-off passenger ships, as recommended by the steering committee of the roll-on roll-off ferry safety research programme; and when in May the maritime safety committee of the International Maritime Organisation will meet.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has already submitted a paper to the 58th session of the maritime safety committee of the International Maritime Organisation, which takes place from 21 to 25 May 1990. Our paper sets out the work and recommendations of the ro-ro safety research programme, and proposes that"the Committee consider the adoption of a standard of residual stability for existing ro-ro ferries higher than that now required by the Convention",
  and will include the steering committee and overview reports.

  Marchioness
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further grant to the Marchioness disaster fund to cover the cost of legal representation of the relatives of the victims at the forthcoming inquest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr McLoughlin
  I announced on 18 October 1989 that the Government had contributed £125,000 to the
  911
  Riverboat Trust Fund set up by the mayor of Southwark, following the Marchioness disaster. Payments from the trust are matters for the trustees within the terms of the deed of trust, and I see no reason for a further contribution to the fund for the suggested purpose.

  Toton Goods Yard
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chief executive of the British Rail Property Board to discuss the use of British Rail land at Toton for Transport related uses.

  Mr. Portillo
  No; this is a commercial matter for British Rail.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will obtain a copy of the Halcrow Fox Consulting Engineers report on the viability of access to the Toton goods yard through existing transport routes;

  (2) what proposals he has to develop road and rail links between the A52 and the proposed Toton international freight terminal;

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that an international freight terminal for the east midlands is built at Toton goods yards on land currently owned by British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  The responsibility for planning international rail freight services rests with British Rail. Any road implications of particular proposals will be considered by my Department in due course.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what correspondence he has received from Nottinghamshire county council, Mr. Cedric Ford and the Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce regarding delays in the freeing of derelict land in the ownership of British Rail in the Toton area.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am not aware of any such correspondence.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 239, if he will place in the Library a copy of the full report on the test carried out by the railways inspectorate into the safety effects of the incapacitation of one-person operation train drivers.

  Mr. Portillo
  No tests were carried out by the inspectorate; it observed the exercise carried out by London Underground Ltd. The chief inspecting officer of railways was satisfied by the result.

  Sub-standard Shipping
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the powers that exist at present to eliminate sub-standard shipping from entering ports in the United Kingdom; and if he has any plans to amend those powers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom, with 13 other European countries, is a signatory to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on port state control, under which foreign ships using its ports are subject to inspection to 912
  check compliance with the requirements of the international maritime conventions. Each signatory country should achieve an annual total of inspections corresponding to 25 per cent. of the estimated number of individual foreign merchant ships which enter its ports during a 12-month period; the United Kingdom has always exceeded 25 per cent. In practice, this should result in an inspection rate of around 85 per cent. of all individual ships using ports in the region.

  The Department's marine surveyors possess substantial powers to ensure that deficiencies found on ships are rectified. These powers include the sanction of detention in cases where the deficiency is serious and clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment: the owner or master may also be prosecuted. I have no immediate plans to seek amendments to the present powers.

  Merchant Fleet
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of merchant vessels in the United Kingdom fleet(a) today and (b) 15 years ago; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the decline.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of merchant vessels—over 500 gross registered tonnes—in the United Kingdom fleet, including Crown dependencies, but excluding British dependent territories overseas at 28 February 1990 were as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1975

  1,776

  1990

  444

  The number of ships on the United Kingdom register reduced as a consequence of the general decline in world shipping from the economically unsustainable levels of the 1970s. Changes in trading patterns, notably arising from adjustments to oil price increases, particularly affected the United Kingdom tanker fleet. Additionally, British operators have withdrawn from less profitable shipping sectors and concentrated on the higher value-added sectors.

  Merchant Fleet
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of officers and ratings employed on British merchant ships(a) today and (b) in 1975; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the decline.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The most recent figures are as follows:

  Officers and ratings employed in the United Kingdom shipping industry: 1975, 1989

  31 December 1975

  31 December 1989

  Officers

  35,815

  8,573

  Ratings

  33,524

  11,953

  Note: Figures derived from General Council of British Shipping statistics.

  The number of jobs on British merchant ships reduced with the decline in the British world fleets from the

  913
  economically unsustainable levels of the 1970s. Automation and new technology have further reduced the number of crew required.

  Coastal Trading
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to eliminate from coastal trading the ships of countries which do not allow British ships access to their coastal trades.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. The adoption of such a policy would be against our aim of promoting competition in shipping markets and reducing transport costs. My right hon. Friend is pressing his colleagues in the Transport Council of the European Community to reach early agreement to the liberalisation of all Community coastal and offshore trading. However, as a last resort we would consider using the powers under the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act to introduce a test of establishment for any operator trading in United Kingdom coastal waters.

  Chemical Discharge, Salisbury
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the Health and Safety Executive on the discharge of chemicals by British Rail on to private land in Salisbury on 5 and 6 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  On 6 March, BR staff applied the locally stored pesticides to brambles. Shunting staff considered the brambles to be a safety hazard. Subsequently, the chemicals were spread by the wind on to some nearby private properties causing damage to plants, grass and herbage. The environmental health officer wrote to all households in the vicinity warning them not to eat any produce from the affected gardens. I understand the two herbicides involved, Atlacide and Borocil, are MAFF approved products, but their effects could persist for some time.

  British Rail has accepted full responsibility for the incident and is, I understand, in touch with local people to discuss compensation. An officer of the railway inspectorate is investigating the matter and will decide whether any further action is necessary.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Training
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people from developing countries have been financed to come to the United Kingdom for training for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The number of overseas students in this country under United Kingdom Government support schemes for the years 1979 to 1988 is estimated as follows. Some schemes are recorded only on a financial year basis. Where this is so the number for the financial year (for example) 1983–84 has been counted as 1983.

  Number

  1979

  16,021

  1980

  14,433

  1981

  13,755

  1982

  12,639

  1983

  15,460

  1984

  17,587

  1985

  16,731

  1986

  16,952

  1987

  18,764

  1988

  19,544

  Water and Sewerage Projects
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many water supply and sewerage projects have been financed by the Overseas Development Administration for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A total of 62 projects in the water supply and sewerage sectors were financed during the years 1980–88, some of which have spanned more than one year. This includes projects committed before 1980.

  The numbers of new commitments in these sectors each year were:

  Number

  1980

  1

  1981

  9

  1982

  0

  1983

  3

  1984

  3

  1985

  3

  1986

  4

  1987

  4

  1988

  6

  The figure for 1989 is not yet available.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the major projects currently being undertaken by the Natural Resources Institute.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Natural Resources Institute aims to alleviate poverty and hardship in developing countries by increasing the productivity of their renewable natural resources. It does this by supporting projects which help to increase agricultural productivity and farmer income through the more effective use and management of resources; develop robust, cost-effective solutions to pest management problems, paying particular attention to 916
  environmental safety and user needs; and reduce crop losses and improve the supply and quality of food and cash crops in the domestic and export markets of developing countries.

  I shall send the hon. Member a copy of the framework document of the Natural Resources Institute, together with the latest annual report, which reviews major projects. Both documents are in the Libraries of the House.

  Energy Projects
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will outline the Overseas Development Administration's current policy towards providing advice and finance for new energy projects in developing countries;

  (2) which organisations in Britain provide advice to the Overseas Development Administration on energy policy in developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The policy of the Overseas Development Administration towards providing advice and finance for new energy projects in developing countries is based on the assessment, case-by-case, of several factors. These include economic appraisal of the energy supply-demand situation; the scope for increase in the technical and economic efficiency of existing energy supply and use systems; social and environmental issues; and the need to ensure the reliability and sustainability of energy supplies.

  In making such assessments, the ODA draws on the advice of its own substantial body of economic, engineering, natural resources, and social development advisers, supplemented by that of British consultants as necessary. In addition, the Administration keeps in touch with national and international expertise in British industry, academic bodies; the World Bank; regional development banks; the United Nations Environmental Programme and the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Women
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the ways in which the Government is specifically assisting women in developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our booklet "Women, Development and the British Aid Programme", published in March 1989 copies of which are in the library, explains our women in development policy and how we are helping women in developing countries. I have today sent the hon. Gentleman a copy.

  Anniversary Review
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost to his Department of producing the booklet, "British Overseas Aid—Anniversary Review 1989".

  Mrs. Chalker
  It cost £105,000 to produce 20,000 copies of the anniversary review 1989 at a unit cost of £5·25.

  Kenya
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what types of project are being financed by the Overseas Development Administration in the Embu, Meru and Isiolo districts of Kenya.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have been assisting Kenya's arid and semi-arid lands development strategy by funding projects to stem environmental deterioration and to improve the productivity of the land in the drier areas of Embu, Meru and Isiolo districts. Under these projects £3·7 million has been committed for soil and water conservation, forestry development, livestock improvement and goat and sheep improvement.

  We have also recently completed the financing of the construction and equipping of a 160-bed district hospital at Isiolo at a cost of over £3 million; we are continuing to help, for example, with the provision of technical co-operation.

  Aid Shipments
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce a policy of using only British ships for the shipment of United Kingdom aid cargoes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No. Government policy is that aid cargoes should be shipped in accordance with normal commercial competitive practice and not directed to ships or companies of any particular flag or country. This policy is designed to ensure value for money for the aid programme.

  Vietnam
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer concerning the lack of a shadow programme between Vietnam and international financial institutions,Official Report, 2 April, column 889, if he will define the term shadow programme and give any examples of countries that have previously established such programmes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The term "shadow programme" refers to programmes of economic reform undertaken by a number of countries which have fallen into arrears on repayments due to the IMF, World Bank and regional development banks and have been declared ineligible for further lending. After approval by the IMF's executive board, these programmes are known as fund-monitored programmes (FMPs). They have specific targets and performance criteria, as in any normal IMF programme, but do not include any access to IMF resources. The purpose of an FMP is to allow a country to establish a track record of economic reform as a condition for international assistance with the clearance of arrears and for resumption of access to IMF lending. FMPs were agreed for Guyana in April 1989, Somalia in July 1989, and Zambia in March 1990. The executive board has not yet approved an FMP for Vietnam.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Sierra Leone currently has(a) arrears owed to the International
  918
  Monetary Fund, and (b) an economic programme agreed with the International Monetary Fund; and whether there is currently a British aid programme in Sierra Leone.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes, Sierra Leone has arrears to the International Monetary Fund amounting to $91 million at the end of March 1990. There is currently no economic programme agreed with the International Monetary Fund, but discussions with the fund and the World Bank are taking place.

  The current British programme to Sierra Leone comprises technical co-operation and training; expenditure in 1989–90 amounted to some £1·6 million.

  Zambia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether United Kingdom aid to Zambia has ceased at any point since 1985.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No. Gross annual United Kingdom bilateral aid to Zambia since 1985 has been:

  £ million

  1986

  35·351

  1987

  25·349

  1988

  16·683

  The 1989 figures are not yet available. As I announced on 5 April, we intend to provide a further tranche of £30 million in balance of payments support in 1990 to assist the implementation of the economic recovery programme agreed with the IMF, in addition to our ongoing technical co-operation programme.

  ACP Debt
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of the Minister for Overseas Development on 2 April,Official Report, column 415, when and in which forum a decision is expected to be taken on cancelling outstanding repayments owed by ACP countries under the STABEX system; what is the estimated amount of such outstanding repayments; and whether Her Majesty's Government is in favour of their cancellation.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ACP-EC Council of Ministers is responsible for resolving this issue. A decision was not reached at its recent meeting in Fiji, and the matter is now unlikely to be formally settled until next year's meeting. In the meantime, no repayment of the sums involved, some 90 million ecu—around £70 million—will be required. A final decision will be taken in the preparation for next year's meeting.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sources of local authority income which have financed total local authority expenditure for each region in Scotland for every year since 1979–80 in constant prices and percentage terms.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The figures are given in the table. They have been converted to 1988–89 prices using the gross
  919
  domestic product deflator. Amounts for rate and revenue support grant are final amounts or those applying to the most recent order. Figures for non-domestic and domestic rates are derived from data published in rating review for the relevant years up to 1988–89. For 1989–90 and 1990–91 amounts of non-domestic rate income and community

  Rate Support Grant

  Non-Domestic Rate Income

  Domestic Rates

  Total

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  1979–80

  Borders

  40·614

  74·2

  7·530

  13·8

  6·577

  12·0

  54·721

  Central

  83·315

  57·9

  43·834

  30·5

  16·783

  11·6

  143·932

  Dumfries and Galloway

  53·403

  72·7

  11·139

  15·2

  8·879

  12·1

  73·421

  Fife

  111·977

  67·0

  34·804

  20·8

  20·317

  12·2

  167·098

  Grampian

  162·117

  62·9

  64·241

  24·9

  31·447

  12·2

  257·805

  Highland

  97·281

  75·5

  20·368

  15·8

  11·260

  8·7

  128·909

  Lothian

  252·395

  58·5

  115·978

  26·9

  63·363

  14·7

  431·736

  Strathclyde

  996·116

  71·9

  252·944

  18·3

  136·408

  9·8

  1,385·468

  Tayside

  139·460

  67·5

  43·254

  20·9

  23·906

  11·6

  206·620

  Orkney

  9·157

  42·9

  11·026

  51·7

  1·159

  5·4

  21·342

  Shetland

  11·551

  45·1

  13·249

  51·7

  0·811

  3·2

  25·611

  Western Isles

  26·351

  87·1

  2·744

  9·1

  1·161

  3·8

  30·256

  1980–81

  Borders

  41·705

  71·5

  8·865

  15·2

  7·725

  13·3

  58·295

  Central

  86·564

  58·2

  44·287

  29·8

  17·882

  12·0

  148·733

  Dumfries and Galloway

  53·725

  70·7

  12·211

  16·1

  10·066

  13·2

  76·002

  Fife

  113·949

  63·5

  40·697

  22·7

  24·880

  13·9

  179·526

  Grampian

  163·786

  62·1

  67·181

  25·5

  32·881

  12·5

  263·848

  Highland

  98·623

  72·0

  24·640

  18·0

  13·746

  10·0

  137·009

  Lothian

  250·737

  53·4

  139·186

  29·6

  79·744

  17·0

  469·667

  Strathclyde

  1,038·548

  68·3

  308·514

  20·3

  173·340

  11·4

  1,520·402

  Tayside

  140·773

  65·9

  46·089

  21·6

  26·862

  12·6

  213·724

  Orkney

  10·142

  48·4

  10·222

  48·8

  0·582

  2·8

  20·946

  Shetland

  12·769

  26·3

  34·366

  70·9

  1·366

  2·8

  48·501

  Western Isles

  27·137

  84·6

  3·436

  10·7

  1·487

  4·6

  32·060

  1981–82

  Borders

  41·707

  68·8

  10·143

  16·7

  8·787

  14·5

  60·637

  Central

  84·553

  53·8

  51·605

  32·9

  20·926

  13·3

  157·084

  Dumfries and Galloway

  53·716

  68·5

  13·545

  17·3

  11·158

  14·2

  78·419

  Fife

  113·177

  60·2

  46·053

  24·5

  28·869

  15·4

  188·099

  Grampian

  165·917

  61·0

  71·273

  26·2

  34·794

  12·8

  271·984

  Highland

  96·747

  67·0

  30·700

  21·2

  17·062

  11·8

  144·509

  Lothian

  195·921

  39·0

  193·716

  38·6

  112·738

  22·4

  502·375

  Strathclyde

  1,002·856

  62·3

  383·143

  23·8

  224·544

  13·9

  1,610·543

  Tayside

  140·219

  60·6

  56·696

  24·5

  34·320

  14·8

  231·235

  Orkney

  9·904

  47·5

  10·341

  49·6

  0·613

  2·9

  20·858

  Shetland

  13·051

  27·2

  33·835

  70·5

  1·133

  2·4

  48·019

  Western Isles

  27·850

  81·3

  4·516

  13·2

  1·897

  5·5

  34·263

  1982–83

  Borders

  41·857

  68·3

  10·303

  16·8

  9·165

  14·9

  61·325

  Central

  82·471

  49·5

  58·755

  35·3

  25·243

  15·2

  166·469

  Dumfries and Galloway

  54·720

  63·6

  16·994

  19·8

  14·314

  16·6

  86·028

  Fife

  108·173

  55·7

  52·432

  27·0

  33·536

  17·3

  194·141

  Grampian

  156·627

  56·3

  80·563

  28·9

  41·271

  14·8

  278·461

  Highland

  97·667

  65·4

  33·766

  22·6

  17·926

  12·0

  149·359

  Lothian

  229·679

  47·2

  162·308

  33·4

  94·482

  19·4

  486·469

  Strathclyde

  998·191

  60·6

  403·543

  24·5

  244·401

  14·9

  1,646·135

  Tayside

  135·904

  58·1

  60·523

  25·9

  37·584

  16·1

  234·011

  Orkney

  9·363

  47·1

  9·848

  49·5

  0·666

  3·4

  19·877

  Shetland

  13·561

  27·7

  34·237

  70·0

  1·139

  2·3

  48·937

  Western Isles

  29·913

  81·4

  4·777

  13·0

  2·041

  5·6

  36·731

  1983–84

  Borders

  42·342

  71·7

  8·899

  15·1

  7·835

  13·3

  59·076

  Central

  82·989

  52·1

  53·871

  33·8

  22·490

  14·1

  159·350

  Dumfries and Galloway

  55·731

  66·9

  14·961

  18·0

  12·596

  15·1

  83·288

  Fife

  110·575

  56·3

  52·341

  26·6

  33·556

  17·1

  196·472

  Grampian

  163·977

  56·4

  85·612

  29·5

  41·095

  14·1

  290·684

  Highland

  99·360

  67·0

  32·121

  21·7

  16·793

  11·3

  148·274

  Lothian

  226·505

  51·5

  134·614

  30·6

  78·628

  17·9

  439·747

  Strathclyde

  995·009

  61·5

  389·194

  24·0

  234·943

  14·5

  1,619·146

  Tayside

  137·077

  58·8

  58·992

  25·3

  37·260

  16·0

  233·329

  920
  charge income are taken from the provisional outturn budget estimate returns made by local authorities by the Scottish Office. Domestic rates figures are net of domestic rate relief. All figures of domestic rate and community charge income are inclusive of rebates.
  921

  Rate Support Grant

  Non-Domestic Rate Income

  Domestic Rates

  Total

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  Orkney

  11·587

  56·9

  8·225

  40·4

  0·567

  2·8

  20·379

  Shetland

  12·929

  26·7

  34·264

  70·9

  1·150

  2·4

  48·343

  Western Isles

  29·711

  81·5

  4·681

  12·8

  2·082

  5·7

  36·474

  1984–85

  Borders

  40·613

  69·2

  9·600

  16·4

  8·441

  14·4

  58·654

  Central

  82·378

  52·2

  50·839

  32·2

  24·722

  15·7

  157·939

  Dumfries and Galloway

  53·192

  65·6

  15·097

  18·6

  12·833

  15·8

  81·122

  Fife

  96·967

  50·9

  56·876

  29·8

  36·800

  19·3

  190·643

  Grampian

  155·758

  55·7

  83·770

  29·9

  40·357

  14·4

  279·885

  Highland

  93·455

  65·2

  32·174

  22·4

  17·740

  12·4

  143·369

  Lothian

  210·524

  48·0

  143·054

  32·7

  84·487

  19·3

  438·065

  Strathclyde

  921·511

  59·9

  383·807

  24·9

  234·296

  15·2

  1,539·614

  Tayside

  128·654

  57·3

  58·823

  26·2

  37·062

  16·5

  224·539

  Orkney

  9·491

  47·3

  9·885

  49·2

  0·709

  3·5

  20·085

  Shetland

  12·636

  26·4

  34·011

  71·1

  1·184

  2·5

  47·831

  Western Isles

  29·934

  81·0

  4·826

  13·1

  2·180

  5·9

  36·940

  1985–86

  Borders

  40·248

  67·0

  10·765

  17·9

  9·039

  15·1

  60·052

  Central

  75·666

  50·7

  50·136

  33·6

  23·405

  15·7

  149·207

  Dumfries and Galloway

  51·242

  63·0

  17·182

  21·1

  12·930

  15·9

  81·354

  Fife

  97·471

  47·8

  68·217

  33·4

  38·335

  18·8

  204·023

  Grampian

  152·845

  55·2

  85·912

  31·0

  38·017

  13·7

  276·774

  Highland

  92·243

  64·2

  33·937

  23·6

  17·567

  12·2

  143·747

  Lothian

  205·753

  47·6

  138·377

  32·0

  87·936

  20·4

  432·066

  Strathclyde

  913·404

  60·0

  365·587

  24·0

  243·757

  16·0

  1,522·748

  Tayside

  131·170

  57·8

  57·924

  25·5

  37·803

  16·7

  226·897

  Orkney

  8·932

  43·5

  10·536

  51·3

  1·069

  5·2

  20·537

  Shetland

  11·907

  22·8

  38·721

  74·1

  1·609

  3·1

  52·237

  Western Isles

  28·911

  81·2

  4·575

  12·8

  2·120

  6·0

  35·606

  1986–87

  Borders

  41·780

  66·5

  11·216

  17·8

  9·881

  15·7

  62·877

  Central

  77·143

  50·3

  51·150

  33·3

  25·138

  16·4

  153·431

  Dumfries and Galloway

  54·533

  62·3

  18·387

  21·0

  14·610

  16·7

  87·530

  Fife

  95·238

  44·9

  77·028

  36·3

  39·884

  18·8

  212·150

  Grampian

  152·217

  52·2

  94·786

  32·5

  44·399

  15·2

  291·402

  Highland

  93·526

  62·3

  37·367

  24·9

  19·128

  12·8

  150·021

  Lothian

  182·777

  44·4

  139·219

  33·8

  90·083

  21·9

  412·079

  Strathclyde

  824·541

  55·2

  393·871

  26·4

  274·161

  18·4

  1,492·573

  Tayside

  129·595

  57·6

  56·930

  25·3

  38·568

  17·1

  225·093

  Orkney

  8·765

  43·2

  10·556

  52·0

  0·985

  4·9

  20·306

  Shetland

  11·565

  22·8

  37·632

  74·1

  1·613

  3·2

  50·810

  Western Isles

  31·153

  82·3

  4·527

  12·0

  2·166

  5·7

  37·846

  1987–88

  Borders

  44·124

  65·8

  11·948

  17·8

  10·961

  16·4

  67·033

  Central

  84·178

  49·5

  56·773

  33·4

  29·127

  17·1

  170·078

  Dumfries and Galloway

  58·470

  63·0

  18·971

  20·4

  15·438

  16·6

  92·879

  Fife

  85·736

  41·0

  80·950

  38·7

  42·526

  20·3

  209·212

  Grampian

  155·850

  51·6

  98·719

  32·7

  47·417

  15·7

  301·986

  Highland

  99·185

  60·7

  41·482

  25·4

  22·665

  13·9

  163·332

  Lothian

  190·086

  41·1

  163·137

  35·3

  109·476

  23·7

  462·699

  Strathclyde

  851·185

  52·7

  446·372

  27·6

  317·666

  19·7

  1,615·223

  Tayside

  132·100

  54·6

  63·738

  26·4

  45·951

  19·0

  241·789

  Orkney

  10·089

  51·9

  8·568

  44·0

  0·797

  4·1

  19·454

  Shetland

  11·843

  24·3

  35·256

  72·5

  1·558

  3·2

  48·657

  Western Isles

  32·134

  82·4

  4·589

  11·8

  2·271

  5·8

  38·994

  1988–89

  Borders

  44·008

  66·0

  11·648

  17·5

  11·057

  16·6

  66·713

  Central

  78·551

  47·7

  56·240

  34·2

  29·885

  18·2

  164·676

  Dumfries and Galloway

  57·227

  61·5

  19·490

  20·9

  16·399

  17·6

  93·116

  Fife

  105·635

  45·8

  81·804

  35·5

  43·035

  18·7

  230·474

  Grampian

  158·614

  50·3

  104·691

  33·2

  52·188

  16·5

  315·493

  Highland

  100·978

  62·7

  38·768

  24·1

  21·220

  13·2

  160·966

  Lothian

  187·897

  37·5

  183·967

  36·7

  129·751

  25·9

  501·615

  Strathclyde

  898·472

  54·8

  428·452

  26·2

  311·584

  19·0

  1,638·508

  Tayside

  139·187

  54·9

  65·019

  25·7

  49·224

  19·4

  253·430

  Orkney

  10·353

  53·3

  7·814

  40·2

  1·262

  6·5

  19·429

  922 923

  Rate Support Grant

  Non-Domestic Rate Income

  Domestic Rates

  Total

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  per cent.

  £million

  per cent.

  £ million

  Shetland

  11·945

  19·2

  48·079

  77·2

  2·291

  3·7

  62·315

  Western Isles

  31·439

  82·5

  4·431

  11·6

  2·225

  5·8

  38·095

  Revenue Support Grant

  Non-Domestic Rate Income

  Community Charge

  Total

  £m

  per cent.

  £m

  per cent.

  £m

  per cent.

  £m

  1989–90

  Borders

  47·218

  68·3

  9·565

  13·8

  12·353

  17·9

  69·136

  Central

  87·606

  50·8

  49·606

  28·8

  35·229

  20·4

  172·441

  Dumfries and Galloway

  60·946

  63·6

  16·644

  17·4

  18·269

  19·1

  95·859

  Fife

  110·175

  48·3

  69·189

  30·3

  48·695

  21·4

  228·059

  Grampian

  170·559

  53·4

  85·164

  26·7

  63·737

  20·0

  319·460

  Highland

  102·735

  63·8

  32·394

  20·1

  25·913

  16·1

  161·042

  Lothian

  204·251

  40·5

  151·883

  30·1

  147·731

  29·3

  503·865

  Strathclyde

  934·510

  57·6

  378·404

  23·3

  310·831

  19·1

  1,623·745

  Tayside

  145·968

  56·2

  57·934

  22·3

  56·064

  21·6

  259·966

  Orkney

  11·008

  56·8

  6·705

  34·6

  1·686

  8·7

  19·399

  Shetland

  18·886

  45·4

  21·011

  50·5

  1·685

  4·1

  41·582

  Western Isles

  33·136

  82·0

  4·695

  11·6

  2·582

  6·4

  40·413

  1990–91

  Borders

  50·589

  70·4

  9·417

  13·1

  11·860

  16·5

  71·866

  Central

  91·815

  53·3

  42·489

  24·7

  37·923

  22·0

  172·227

  Dumfries and Galloway

  66·468

  65·4

  16·972

  16·7

  18·163

  17·9

  101·603

  Fife

  113·708

  46·8

  73·916

  30·4

  55·545

  22·8

  243·169

  Grampian

  193·213

  60·4

  72·148

  22·6

  54·619

  17·1

  319·980

  Highland

  109·168

  65·5

  32·097

  19·3

  25·481

  15·3

  166·746

  Lothian

  206·404

  41·7

  135·937

  27·5

  152·752

  30·9

  495·093

  Strathclyde

  918·348

  57·4

  356·168

  22·3

  324·506

  20·3

  1,599·022

  Tayside

  154·278

  58·8

  52·364

  20·0

  55·736

  21·2

  262·378

  Orkney

  13·060

  63·2

  5·938

  28·7

  1·680

  8·1

  20·678

  Shetland

  27·040

  60·5

  16·353

  36·6

  1·285

  2·9

  44·678

  Western Isles

  34·549

  82·7

  4·312

  10·3

  2·917

  7·0

  41·778

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the most recent Government estimates of the cost to local authorities in Scotland of recovery of poll tax arrears.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on 15 January.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria his Department has given to assessors for assessing the commerciality of single self-catering units.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, which came into force on 1 April, exclude from the definition of domestic subjects dwelling houses made available for letting, commercially, as self-catering accommodation for short periods amounting in aggregate to at least 140 days per year. This has the effect of rendering such properties liable to non-domestic rates. Implementation of the regulations is in the first place a matter for assessors, whose decisions regarding particular properties are subject to the normal appeal procedures.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list his latest estimate of the percentage of the community charge liability of chargepayers received by each charging authority for 1989–90.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally, but we understand that in 924
  most regions 85 to 95 per cent. of those eligible for the community charge have made some payment, with a figure of 98 per cent. in one area.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the accountancy firms used by his Department.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 December 1989 at column 50. The five firms used in 1989 were:

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  Ernst and Young

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Price Waterhouse

  Medical Treatment
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those medical conditions which cannot be treated by hospitals within Scotland but can be treated by hospitals within England.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None; although in practice patients' conditions requiring certain surgical procedures, for example heart and liver transplants and pancreatic implants, are currently treated in specialised units in England.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) which hospital in Scotland has the longest waiting list for arthritic hip joint surgery; which has the lowest waiting period for arthritic hip joint surgery; and if he will specify the number of waiting days for each;

  (2) which hospital in Scotland has the longest waiting period for varicose veins surgery; which has the lowest waiting period for varicose veins surgery; and if he will specify the number of waiting days for each;

  (3) which hospital in Scotland has the longest waiting list for hernia operations; which has the lowest waiting period for hernia operations; and if he will specify the number of waiting days for each.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on waiting times for individual operations is collected centrally on an annual basis. That for 1988, the last year for which statistics are available, revealed the following:

  (a) Raigmore hospital, Inverness (Highland health board) had the longest median wait of 214 days for operations which are performed on arthritic hip joints. Stirling royal infirmary (Forth Valley health hoard) had the lowest median wait of 51 days.

  (b) Victoria hospital, Kirkcaldy (Fife health board) has the longest median wait of 803 days for varicose vein operations. Dr. Grays hospital, Elgin (Grampian health board) had the lowest median wait of 43 days.

  (c) Glasgow royal infirmary (Greater Glasgow health board) had the longest median wait of 124 days for hernia operations. Stracathro hospital, Brechin (Tayside health board) had the lowest median wait of 19 days.

  In all three instances, hospitals with less than 50 such cases were excluded.

  Rents-to-Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inquiries from tenants interested in purchasing their homes under the rents-to-mortgages scheme are now in the process of converting from rent to mortgage.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes is responsible for the processing of applications to purchase under the rents-to-mortgages scheme. As at 26 March Scottish Homes had received 839 inquiries from tenants interested in purchasing their homes under the scheme and at that date was processing 84 applications to purchase.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of inquiries from tenants interested in purchasing their homes under the rents-to-mortgages scheme for each Scottish Homes area office.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the source of inquiries under the rents-to-mortgages scheme is not held centrally. I have asked Scottish Homes to supply the information directly to the hon. Member.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether under the Scottish community charge regulations the 60-day period beyond which capital gains tax becomes chargeable upon the proceeds of the sale of a private home which is used in part as a bed-and-breakfast business refers to consecutive days or to the total in any one year.
  926
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply because of my responsibilities for the community charge in Scotland. I intend to write to my hon. Friend shortly about her question.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what submissions he has received from individuals or organisations interested in taking over the development corporation housing stocks in each of the Scottish new towns; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the maximum hourly rate of remuneration that has been accepted as reasonable by the accountant in bankruptcy, in terms of section 53(4) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, being work reasonably undertaken by the trustee in sequestration.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The maximum hourly rate allowed by the accountant in bankruptcy other than in exceptional circumstances in assessing claims for the remuneration of trustees and their staff is the same as that published by the Law Society of Scotland in respect of charges by the legal profession for similar work. The present Law Society rate is £62.

  Books and Equipment
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide to the latest available date the figures for Scotland equivalent to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), of 13 February,Official Report, columns 142-44, on expenditure on books and equipment.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 14 February 1990,Official Report columns 190-92.

  Court Reporting
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray,Official Report, 2 April, column 474, he will list in the Official Report the names and addresses of organisations and companies which were successful in winning contracts for function of shorthandwriting in Scottish courts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following four firms secured Government shorthand writing contracts for the period April 1990 to March 1992 in the Scottish courts:

  William Hodge (Shorthand Writers) Ltd.

  20 York Place

  Edinburgh

  William Hodge & Pollock Ltd.

  36 North Frederick Street

  Glasgow

  John Larking

  Coniston Bunch Lane

  Haslemere

  Surrey

  927

  Verbatim Reporters

  98 Hanover Street

  Edinburgh

  Roads
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's conclusions following consultation on the routes south of Edinburgh road study.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I announced today the results of our consultation exercise. Copies of the report on the consultation responses and on the Government's proposals in the light of them have been placed in the Library of the House. As with the original consultation paper, I have also arranged for a copy of the report to be sent to all Scottish Members.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish for each health board in Scotland(a) the net income from private patients and clinics and (b) the amounts written off in bad debts each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were prescription charges in Scotland in 1979; if he will list each subsequent increase; and what has been the percentage change since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: On 16 July 1979 the United Kingdom National Health Service prescription charge was increased from 20p to 45p. Since then the charge has been increased on 11 occasions to its present level of £3.05; the increases are listed in the table.

  This represents an increase of 237 per cent in real terms.

  Year

  Prescription Charge

  Cash Increase

  1979 (July)

  £0.45

  25p

  1980 (April)

  £0.70

  25p

  1980 (December)

  £1.00

  30p

  1982 (April)

  £1.30

  30p

  1983 (April)

  £1.40

  l0p

  1984 (April)

  £1.60

  20p

  1985 (April)

  £2.00

  40p

  1986 (April)

  £2.20

  20p

  1987 (April)

  £2.40

  20p

  1988 (April)

  £2.60

  20p

  1989 (April)

  £2.80

  20p

  1990 (April)

  £3.05

  25p

  Police Rent Allowances
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an estimate of the cost to public funds of(a) uprating rent allowance in the three police forces in Scotland whose rent allowance was last reviewed in 1988 by the index agreed by the police negotiating board and (b) by the movement in the retail prices index since their force maximum was last reviewed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: If the formula proposed by the police negotiating
  928
  board for uprating the new housing allowance were used to uprate the rent allowances in payment on 31 March in the three forces concerned, the cost to public funds would be about £2 million in 1990–91; but no such course of action was proposed by the police negotiating board. My right hon. and learned Friend's decision to uprate rent allowances in the three police forces concerned by reference to the increase in the retail prices index is likely to cost about £0·84 million in 1990–91.

  Shellfish Harvesting, Solway Firth
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the findings of the recent research report to the Nature Conservancy Council on the effects of mechanised shellfish harvesting on the conservation of wildlife in the Solway.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: This report was prepared for the Nature Conservancy Council. I await its considered views and advice on the matter.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secrsetary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to control or prohibit potentially damaging operations in estuaries for the purposes of meeting Her Majesty's Government's obligations under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: Sites selected for designation under the Ramsar convention will have previously been notified as sites of special scientific interest by the Nature Conservancy Council. They are protected under sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 against those potentially damaging operations specified by the council.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions currently exist to control mechanised shellfish harvesting in areas which meet the criteria for protection under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: Mechanised shellfish harvesting may be controlled through byelaws made by the Nature Conservancy Council in those areas which are national nature reserves. Local authorities have similar byelaw-making powers to control access in other areas.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the seaward limit of sites of special scientific interest notified in accordance with section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to encourage the take-up of the hepatitis vaccine in Scotland, particularly among people in high-risk groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: Advice on hepatitis B vaccination is contained in the memorandum, "Immunisation against Infectious

  929
  Disease", which is prepared for the health departments by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation and is issued to all doctors in Scotland. The memorandum identifies the high-risk groups and gives advice on those to whom vaccination should be offered. A new edition of the memorandum, which will be issued shortly, will remind doctors of the high-risk groups.

  Guidance on measures for the protection of health care workers in hospital and the community against occupational infection with HIV and hepatitis viruses was issued on 5 April. The guidance, which is based largely on the advice of the expert advisory group on AIDS, draws attention to the joint committee's recommendations on immunisation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) towns and (b) cities (i) in Britain and (ii) abroad she has visited in 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  My official duties involve visiting a considerable number of towns and cities. This year I have visited 12 towns and cities in the United Kingdom and two overseas, other than capital cities.

  Archbishop of Canterbury
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many official meetings she has had with the Archbishop of Canterbury since his appointment.

  The Prime Minister
  I have met the Archbishop of Canterbury on many occasions, whether formal or otherwise, during the last 10 years.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on recent representations she has received about the poll tax.

  The Prime Minister
  I continue to receive many representations about the community charge.

  Now that bills are arriving in people's homes they can see the substantial help that the Government are providing through grants, rebates and transitional relief. They can also see the link between their councils' spending plans and the level of the charge for their area.

  I share the concern of many over the unjustified high charges that have been set by some councils and I am confident that in the years ahead local electors will demand restraint. In the first year of the new arrangements however I warmly endorse the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in taking firm and immediate action against 20 authorities whose budgets are excessive.

  Mr. Charles Powell
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether it was with her authority that Mr. Charles Powell participated at a recent dinner with Mr. Aspinall, Sir James Goldsmith, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and Conrad Black, to discuss the attitude of The Daily Telegraph towards her position as leader of the
  930
  Conservative party; and what consequences such participation by a civil servant has for the Armstrong guidelines on the role of civil servants.

  The Prime Minister
  The circumstances are not as the hon. Member describes them, and the issues in his question do not arise. The way in which the hon. Member attempts to vilify individual civil servants is deplorable.

  Speeches
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times, excluding Prime Minister's Question Time, she has spoken in the House in(a) debates and (b) statements, in each year since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is available in the Library of the House of Commons.

WALES

  NHS (Capital Allocations)
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes are taking place for capital allocation for the Health Service in Wales in 1991–92; for how long there will be transitional arrangements; and whether such arrangements will protect major schemes approved or commenced in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Grist
  The NHS and Community Care Bill proposes changes in the way in which health services will be funded and charged for. This requires a new approach to determining capital allocations which will take account of health authorities' role as procurers of services and that of hospitals as providers of those services. Authorities will be consulted soon on possible future arrangements. However, it is not intended to begin changing the basis for allocating capital resources until 1992–93 in view of the lead time required to adjust service plans accordingly.

  In addition, transitional arrangements will be introduced before the changes take their full effect with the aim of minimising disruption to health authorities' short term programmes and to protect existing contractual commitments. It is not possible to be specific about the length of time these arrangements will be required until the changes have themselves been agreed. For the same reason, it is not possible to confirm that all major schemes, other than those already subject to contractual commitments, will necessarily be protected under the transitional arrangements.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of capital allocation for the Health Service in Wales for 1990–91; and what is this in real terms after allowing for inflation in the construction industry taking 1982–83 as a base year.

  Mr. Grist
  The level of cash provision for capital spending in the NHS in Wales in 1990–91 is almost £95 million. It is not possible to say how much of this will be spent on new construction work as the provision includes £44·5 million which has been allocated to district health authorities for their discretionary use and it is possible that their plans for the use of these funds may have been varied since the submission of their 10-year capital programmes in April 1989. It also has to be borne in mind that the definition of capital expenditure within the Health Service
  931
  does not relate only to new construction and capital maintenance of buildings. It also includes the purchase of medical and information technology equipment, the purchase of vehicles and the salary costs and travel and subsistence expenses of health service staff wholly engaged on capital works. It is, therefore, not appropriate simply to apply the construction industry price index to total capital provision in order to establish its value at constant prices. Indeed, the real-terms value of any element of programme provision is best expressed in terms of its opportunity cost to the economy as a whole and therefore adjusted by reference to actual and forecast movements in general inflation using the GDP deflator. On this basis and taking 1982–83 as the base year, the real-terms value of capital provision for the NHS in Wales in 1990–91 is some £61·9 million. This compares with £47·7 million in 1982–83 which in real terms represents an increase of nearly 30 per cent.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he proposes to increase the financial allocation for Wales for the Health Service to fund the building of two general hospital developments, while at the same time meeting normal replacement and updating requirements and the funding for major computer acquisitions.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 11 January when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, announced the revenue and capital allocations to health authorities in Wales for 1990–91.

  I also refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 12 February in which my right hon. Friend announced the distribution of almost £10 million for schemes to be centrally funded under the programme for the valleys initiative. This included provision relating to the development of a new district general hospital to serve the Taff Ely/Rhondda area and the development of community hospitals at Ebbw Vale and Ystrad Fechan.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many general practitioner practices in each county in Wales will be eligible under his Department's criteria to become a fund-holding practice;

  (2) how many general practitioner practices in Wales will be eligible under his Department's criteria to become fund-holding practices.

  Mr. Grist
  It is not possible to place a figure on the number of practices meeting the eligibility criteria for fund-holding status. While each practice fund will require a minimum of 9,000 patients, smaller practices are enabled to group together to attain this number. In addition to its patient list size, each practice will need to demonstrate its ability to manage a practice fund.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he permits the use of capital receipts by health authorities in Wales to fund revenue spending; and if he will make a statement.
  932
  Mr. Grist
  Health authorities are permitted a degree of in-year flexibility in the use of their revenue and capital resources. An authority can vire up to 1 per cent. of its final approved revenue cash limit to capital, and conversely up to 10 per cent. of its final approved capital cash limit to revenue. In the event that an authority wishes to exceed its permitted virement limits, this may be allowed if the excess virement requirement can be contained within the all Wales virement totals.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the budget shortfall estimated by each health authority in Wales for the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to him on 28 March.

DEFENCE

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many managed conservations areas he has established; if he will list them; and if he will make a statement as to how he intends to protect their ecology.

  Mr. Neubert
  Conservation groups and focal points, several of which cover more than one establishment, are in existence at the locations across the defence estate listed in the table. Conservation groups include among their members both professional and amateur naturalists, including representatives of such bodies as the Nature Conservancy Council and county naturalist trusts. They provide advice upon how the ecology of the area should be protected and, where possible, enhanced. Account is taken of this advice in the management of the area concerned, to the maximum extent consistent with military requirements. Focal points exist at those establishments at which, although there is natural history interest, there is no formal conservation group.

  Aberporth RAE

  Aldermaston AWE

  Aldershot Training Areas

  Altcar TAVRA Ranges

  Amport House (RAF Chaplain's School)

  Ash Common Training Area

  Ashchurch CVD

  Ballykinler Ranges

  Barnham Training Area

  Barnsfield Heath

  Barry Buddon Training Area

  Barton Stacey Training Area

  Bassingbourne Training Area

  Bawdsey RAF

  Beaconsfield RAEC Centre

  Beckingham Ranges

  Bedford RAE

  Benbecula RA Ranges

  Bicester COD

  Bisley Ranges

  Blandford Camp

  Bordon Training Area

  Boscombe Down RAE

  Bourley Training Area

  Bovington RAC Centre

  Bracknell (Met Office)

  Bramley CAD

  Brampton RAF

  Braunton Burrows Training Area

  Broughton Moor RNAD

  933

  Browndown Training Area

  Burghfield AWE

  Caerwent RAF

  Camberley

  Cambridge HMS

  Canterbury Old Park Training Area

  Cape Wrath RN Ranges

  Carlisle RAF

  Castlelaw Ranges

  Castlemartin Ranges

  Catterick RAF

  Catterick Training Area

  Chatham (including: Brompton, Upnor, Hoo Salt Marshes, etc)

  Chattenden Woods

  Chepstow AAC

  Chertsey RARDE

  Chilmark RAF

  Chivenor RAF

  Christchurch RARDE

  Colchester Ranges and Training Area

  Cold Meece P and EE

  Coltishall RAF

  Coningsby RAF

  Coulport RNAD

  Culdrose RNAS

  Dartmoor (Willsworthy Training Area)

  Daedalus HMS

  Dean Hill RNAD

  Ditton Park ARE

  Dolphin HMS

  Donna Nook RAF

  Donnington COD

  Dover Training Areas

  Dreghorn Ranges

  Dryad HMS

  East Riggs Ammunition Depot

  Edzell RAF

  Elstead Training Area

  Ernesettle RNAD

  Eskmeals P&EE

  Farnborough RAE

  Feldom Training Area

  Fingringhoe Ranges

  Flowerdown

  Forest Moor HMS

  Fort George Training Area (Inverness)

  Fort Halstead RARDE

  Foulness Ranges (including Potton Island, Rushley Island, Havengore, etc)

  Frater RNAD

  Fylingdales RAF

  Garelochhead Training Area

  Glen Douglas

  Gosport RNAD

  Hamworthy RM

  Hankley Training Area

  Haslar RNH

  Hawley Training Area

  Holbeach RAF

  Holcombe Moor Training Area

  Hopwas Hayes Wood

  Horsea Island

  Hullavington RAF

  Hurn Test Site

  Hythe Ranges

  Inskip HMS

  Kineton CAD

  Kingsbury Wood

  Kinloss RAF

  Kirkudbright RARDE

  Lakenheath RAF (including Wangford Warren)

  Leek Training Area

  Leeming RAF

  Leuchars RAF

  Lichfield

  Linton-on-Ouse RAF

  Llanbedr RAE

  Long Marston Depot

  Longmoor Training Area

  934

  Longtown CAD

  Lossiemouth RAF

  Lulworth Ranges

  Lydd Ranges

  Machrihanish RAF

  Magilligan Point Training Area

  Marham RAF

  Mercury HMS

  Mere Ranges

  Mereworth Woods Training Area

  Milton Ranges

  Minley Training Area

  Mona RAF

  Morton on Lugg RAOC Depot

  Mount Batten RAF

  Mychett Training Area

  Nesscliffe Camp and Training Area

  Newtown IOW TAVR

  Oakington Barracks

  Ockley Training Area

  Otmoor TARVA

  Otterburn Training Area

  Pembrey RAF

  Pendine P and EE

  Penhale Training Area

  Pippingford Park Training Area

  Pirbright Ranges

  Plymouth (including RAF Mount Batten, Manadon)

  Portland RNAS

  Porton CDE

  Portsdown ARE

  Portsmouth Harbour (including Gosport, Frater, HMS Dryad)

  Predannack RNAS

  Proteus Training Area

  Purfleet Ranges

  Raleigh HMS

  Ripon Parks Training Area

  Rosyth Naval Base

  Salisbury Plain (Centre)—Larkhill Ranges

  Salisbury Plain (East)—Bulford Ranges

  Salisbury Plain (West)—Imber/Warminster Training Area

  Sandleheath

  Sandhurst RMA

  Saxa Vord RAF

  Sculthorpe RAF

  Sennybridge Training Area

  Shinfield Park (Met Office)

  Shoeburyness P and EE

  Shorncliffe Training Area

  Shrivenham RMCS

  Spadeadam RAF

  Stainmore Training Area

  Stanford Training Area

  Stornaway RAF

  Stradishall Training Area

  Strensall Training Area

  Swynnerton Training Area

  Tain RAF

  Theddlethorpe Dunes

  Thorney Island

  Thursley Training Area

  Trecwn RNAD

  Tregantle

  Uxbridge RAF

  Valley RAF

  Vernon HMS

  Wainfleet RAF

  Waltham Abbey RARDE

  Warcop Training Area

  Waterbeach Training Area

  Wattisham RAF

  Welbeck College

  West Freugh RAE

  West Moors RAOC

  Winterbourne Gunner NBC Centre

  Wittering RAF

  Woodvale RAF

  Woolmer Training Area

  935

  Worthy Down Camp

  Yardley Chase Training Area

  Yeovilton RNAS (inc: Breech Wood)

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to promote environmental awareness in the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Neubert
  As a result of action already taken, there is an enhanced level of awareness of the different ways in which the activities of the Ministry of Defence can impact on the natural environment.

  The essay on "Defence and the Environment" in chapter 4 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990 (CM 1022-I) gives examples of where this greater awareness has had beneficial consequences.

  More recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has charged me with responsibility for environmental issues throughout the Department, in support of the Government's overall environmental objectives.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being done on alternatives to paints harmful to marine life to prevent contaminated discharges in shipyards from entering estuarial waters.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence is encouraging efforts by the paint industry into the research of environmentally acceptable toxins for anti-fouling paints and is undertaking trials of new products on the hulls of Her Majesty's ships.

  Until non-toxic alternatives are available, measures are being taken to prevent contaminated discharges from entering estuarial waters. The effectiveness of these measures has been confirmed by an extensive monitoring programme.

  The Ministry of Defence's work in this field is reported on at various international conferences and the work has received national and international recognition.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to recover chlorofluorocarbons from ships and submarines in dockyards.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is our policy as far as practicable to recover chlorofluorocarbons from ships and submarines in refit for recycling. In submarines, chlorofluorocarbons are already largely recovered for health and safety reasons. For surface ships, the policy will be introduced progressively.

  Biological Warfare
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has for his statement in the Defence Estimates that the legitimate spread of biotechnology for scientific and economic purposes has carried with it the potential for the diversion of equipment and expertise into offensive biological warfare programmes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Advances in biotechnology have facilitated the large-scale production of toxic materials, some for legitimate civil uses, which had hitherto been available only in minute quantities from natural sources. The equipment and expertise, together with a number of 936
  these materials, have the potential for diversion into military programmes; however, it would not be in the public interest for me to give further details. Our research into biological and toxic agents is entirely defensive, being aimed at the protection of our armed forces from any biological warfare threat, and is permitted under the 1972 biological and toxic warfare convention.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by which date he intends type 23 frigates will be fitted with integrated command and control systems.

  Mr. Neubert
  The type 23 frigate command system will enter service in the mid-1990s.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the areas in which covert surveys of low flying activity in particular areas has taken place in the last 12 months, giving the number of covert surveys made in each area.

  Mr. Neubert
  Between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990 the RAF police carried out covert surveys of low flying activity in the following areas:

  Date

  Location

  25-27 April 1989

  Liskeard, Cornwall

  2-4 May 1989

  Gloucester, Gloucestershire

  8-11 May 1989

  Blencarn, Cumbria

  15-19 May 1989

  Wigtown, Dumfries and Galloway

  22-26 May 1989

  Haddington, Lothian

  26-30 June 1989

  Knaresborough, North Yorkshire (Skyguard deployment)

  24-27 July 1989

  Earl Shilton, Leicestershire

  24-27 July 1989

  Market Bosworth, Leicestershire

  31 July-4 August 1989

  Penrith, Cumbria (Skyguard deployment)

  26-27 September 1989

  Glan Conwy, Gwynedd

  3-5 October 1989

  Alnwick, Northumberland (Skyguard deployment)

  30 January-1 February 1990

  Machynlleth, Powys

  5-9 March 1990

  Wetheral, Cumbria

  26-30 March 1990

  Hereford, Hereford and Worcester

  26-30 March 1990

  Alnwick area, Northumberland Kelso area, Borders (Skyguard deployment)

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library the central records of the usage of the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the latest scheduled times of day for low level attacks during each Mallet Blow exercise since 1987; and at what times low flying activity in each of these exercises actually ceased.

  Mr. Neubert
  The scheduled and actual times when low flying ceased in Mallet Blow exercises since 1987 are as follows:

  Mallet Blow

  Scheduled

  Actual

  87/1

  17.30

  17.30

  87/2

  17.30

  17.30

  87/3

  21.10

  17.30

  937

  Mallet Blow

  Scheduled

  Actual

  88/1

  22.00

  17.30

  88/2

  17.30

  17.30

  89/1

  22.00

  22.00

  89/2

  17.30

  17.30

  90/1

  22.00

  21.50

  Night Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on changes in the training requirement for night flying during Mallet Blow exercises since 1985;

  (2) what plans he has to extend the night flying period in future Mallet Blow exercises to a time later than that used during Mallet Blow 90-1.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on 15 December 1987, column 124.

  War Medals
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider expanding the team responsible for the issue of war medals in order to satisfy existing claimants during the period of world war II anniversaries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are looking at ways in which the waiting time for applicants for world war II medals might be reduced. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend when our studies are complete.

  Ship Charters
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce a policy of using only British ships for his Department's charters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is the Government's policy to charter vessels on the basis of availability, suitability and cost and, subject to these conditions, to give preference to British ship operators.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will set out the arrangements governing repayment schemes relating to prescription charge repayments for members of the armed services and their families.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Members of the armed forces who require emergency medical and dental treatment, outside the umbrella of service medical facilities, which necessitates the issue of prescriptions, may claim a refund of prescription charges through service channels.

  Dependants of service personnel are charged standard prescription rates when medication is provided from service facilities and pay National Health Service prescription charges in the normal way.

  Procurement Executive Airfields
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the representatives of the civilian work force at the aeroplane and armaments experimental establishment at Boscombe Down about the future of the procurement executive airfields.
  938
  Mr. Neubert
  My Department undertakes research and development flying at three procurement executive airfields at Bedford, Boscombe Down and Farnborough. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) informed the House on 15 December 1988, column 683, of our intention to conduct a study into the future requirements for these airfields.

  External consultants were accordingly commissioned in 1989, and they recently submitted their report to the Department. We are now considering the way ahead, with making the most cost-effective use of our facilities against a background of declining flying activity our highest priority.

  As part of our normal practice of keeping the work force fully informed of our intentions, the study's terms of reference, which included instructions to consult the trade unions and to take full account of their views, were passed to the appropriate trade unions. There will, of course, be full consultation with the trade unions and other interested parties before any final decisions are taken.

  Radiation
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what frequency individual dosimeters of refit workers are calibrated and checked.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: In accordance with IRR85, thermoluminescent dosimeters are calibrated on receipt and re-calibrated at regular intervals, at least every 50 read cycles, by the defence radiological protective service, a dosimetry service approved by the Health and Safety Executive. In addition, the absorbtion rate of these dosimeters is checked every month. Direct reading dosimeters are tested at least once every 14 months, also in accordance with IRR85.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what level and individual radiation dose exposure his Department initiates investigation of the cause of these dose exposures.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding reply 4 April 1990]: Investigations are carried out in accordance with the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how alpha radiation is monitored to and within specific human organs on individual refit workers; and what account is taken of radium daughter products occurring naturally;

  (2) what is the individual lung dose for submariners and refit workers arising from absorption of tritium;

  (3) what is the internal organ dose arising from absorption of the radionuclide cobalt-60;

  (4) what is the internal organ dose arising from absorption of the radionuclides strontium-90, caesium-137, carbon-14 and the isotopes of plutonium and uranium.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The results of routine monitoring of levels of the contamination in the working environment and where applicable, biological monitoring of personnel, confirm that there is no requirement to record radiation doses for submariners or workers at the royal dockyards arising from intakes of radioactive material. In the unlikely event of an accident or incident occurring in the workplace leading to any

  939
  suspicion of intake of radioactive material, special monitoring of the individual concerned would be undertaken.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for compensation have been received from refit workers for radiation-induced illness; how many of these claims have been settled; and how many remain in dispute or progress.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: My Department has received a number of claims over the years from service and civilian employees for radiation-related illness, but it is not possible to identify, without disproportionate cost and effort, claimants who were engaged on refit work. Every claim received by the Department is dealt with on the basis of legal liability.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of those refit workers subject to radiation doses in excess of 50 milliSieverts in a particular year received the greater part of such doses as a result of some incident or accident outside the range of normal refit operations; if he will describe such incidents; and what conclusions he has reached as to why such abnormal exposures occurred.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: In the period 1979–89, only one employee engaged on refit work has recorded as receiving an annual dose above 50 milliSieverts, which could not be sensibly attributed to

  Annex A

  Annual individual radiation exposure for workers at the Royal Dockyards

  Year

  Numbers of workers in dose ranges

  0 to 15 mSv

  15 to 20 mSv

  20 to 30 mSv

  30 to 40 mSv

  40 to 50 mSv

  Over 50 mSv

  1989

  1,306

  29

  31

  5

  1

  0

  (2,763)

  1988

  1,469

  18

  10

  0

  0

  0

  (2,862)

  1987

  1,781

  19

  5

  2

  0

  0

  (2,891)

  1986

  2,115

  53

  39

  5

  0

  0

  (2,560)

  1985

  2,093

  76

  62

  17

  0

  0

  (2,419)

  1984

  1,869

  111

  138

  52

  8

  1

  (2,190)

  1983

  2,090

  75

  86

  36

  29

  0

  (2,518)

  1982

  2,165

  85

  69

  14

  6

  0

  (2,672)

  1981

  1,997

  93

  133

  45

  11

  0

  (2,566)

  1980

  1,784

  85

  154

  89

  48

  1

  (2,877)

  1979

  1,469

  102

  125

  75

  66

  2

  (1,697)

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates when his Department's radiological protection measures and guidelines for submariners and refit workers were changed, altered or modified.
  940
  exposure arising from normal refit operations. The majority of his total assessed radiation dose of 88·10 milliSieverts arose from a single dose assessment of 83·75 milliSieverts from a dosimeter issued for use by that employee in June 1984. A local investigation concluded that the dosimeter had been exposed in the absence of the employee. Nevertheless, the recorded over-exposure was notified to the Health and Safety Executive and the assessed radiation dose remains on the record. Data for years earlier than 1979 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown of annual individual radiation exposure for refit workers in the bands 0 to 10, greater than 10 to 20, greater than 20 to 30, greater than 30 to 40, and greater than 50 milliSieverts, for all years since the onset of the naval nuclear propulsion programme.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: A breakdown of annual individual radiation dose for workers at the royal dockyards for each of the years 1979–89 is given in the following table. The figures shown in brackets are the number of additional employees monitored for exposure to ionising radiations by the local issue of direct reading dosimeters while employed under a written system of work. A more detailed or alternative breakdown of the figures and data for years earlier than 1979 can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: Within the Royal Naval submarine flotilla, detailed radiological protection instructions and training and qualification standards are promulgated in classified books of reference which are subject to regular update. The detailed

  941
  instructions were subject to complete reissue in 1985, following publication of the Ionising Radiations Regulations (IRR85), and have been subject to minor amendments since that time. In addition to these specific instructions, nuclear submariners must also comply with general joint services instructions, which are also updated regularly in line with the promulgation of relevant national approved codes of practice.

  Within the royal dockyards, radiological protection aspects are covered by site-specific instructions and standing orders which are produced by the companies and are subject to statutory control. Where relevant, the specific MOD instructions are also compiled with by the contractor in accordance with the terms of the contract.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a definition of those personnel who are generally classed as refit workers who are involved in naval nuclear propulsion plant facilities and who are engaged on or involved with radioactive materials or radioactive processes.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The term "refit worker" is not a designation used by either MOD or its contractors. All personnel within the royal dockyards, who require access to controlled radiation areas as a result of their employment, are regarded as being occupationally exposed to radiation. It is in regard to this group that the radiation dose statistics are provided in answering the hon. Member's several other questions.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if in cases where refit personnel are subject to extraordinary radiation doses, such as in excess of 15 milliSieverts in a particular year, largely as a result of some incident or accident outside the range of normal refit operation, he will publish details of such incidents or cause them to be published in the Health and Safety Executive quarterly statement of nuclear incidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: All exposures of 15 milliSieverts or more within any calendar year are subject to investigation in accordance with regulation 28(1) and (2) of the Ionising Radiations Regulations, with the objectives of triggering procedures to ensure that exposures are being kept as low as reasonably practicable. If an exposure greater than 30mSv in any calendar year occurs, the Health and Safety Executive is notified as required by regulations 13(f) of IRR 85.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the gross numbers of refit workers employed in the United Kingdom, in terms of years employed at each respective port or refit dockyard facilities.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The data are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The numbers of employees occupationally exposed to radiation at each royal dockyard since 1979 are shown in the table.

  Year

  Chatham

  Devonport

  Rosyth

  Total

  1989

  9

  2,394

  1732

  4,13

  1988

  10

  2,677

  1,672

  4,359

  1987

  12

  2,669

  2,017

  4,698

  1986

  17

  3,035

  1,720

  4,772

  942

  Year

  Chatham

  Devonport

  Rosyth

  Total

  1985

  19

  2,936

  1,712

  4,667

  1984

  22

  3,074

  1,273

  4,369

  1983

  447

  3,016

  1,371

  4,834

  1982

  1,246

  2,547

  1,218

  5,011

  1981

  1,456

  2,159

  1,230

  4,845

  1980

  1,915

  1,643

  1,480

  5,038

  1979

  1,008

  1,265

  1,263

  3,536

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what in-house radiological protection measures and guidelines are adopted for submariners and refit workers; and if these are in addition or supplementary to Ionising Radiations Regulations.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: Within MOD, radiation exposures continue to be authorised only on the basis that they are justified, comply with statutory limits, and are as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). Individual measures taken are often site-specific and, in the case of the royal dockyards, are the responsibility of the contractors, who are subject to the legislative requirements.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the accuracy of dosimeters worn by refit workers in terms of percentage of the recorded radiation dose.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The accuracy of the personal dosimeters worn by workers monitored for exposure to ionising radiation by the defence radiological protection service meets the criteria specified by the Health and Safety Executive in its "Guidance on the Approval of Dosimetry Services" under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985, part 1— external radiations.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average individual radiation dose, whole body equivalent, for all refit workers involved or who have been involved in the naval nuclear propulsion programme and associated facilities.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The average annual radiation doses to workers at the royal dockyards for each of the years 1979 to 1989 inclusive are shown in the following table. Data for years after 1986 have been included with the permission of the dockyard contractors. The data include doses to individuals working under a written system of work who were issued with direct reading dosimeters. Figures for years before 1979 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Average annual radiation doses of refit workers

  Year

  Average annual dose (mSv)

  1989

  1·69

  1988

  1·26

  1987

  1·46

  1986

  1·82

  1985

  2·47

  1984

  3·82

  1983

  2·84

  1982

  2·34

  1981

  3·15

  1980

  3·60

  1979

  4·91

  943
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distribution of total radiation exposure for refit workers in the ranges 0 to 5, greater than 5 to 10, greater than 10 to 15, greater than 15 to 20, greater than 20 to 25, greater than 25 to 30, greater than 30 to 35, greater than 35 to 40, greater than 40 to 45, greater than 45 to 50 and greater than 50 milliSieverts in terms of percentage of overall work force.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The distribution of total radiation exposures of those workers at the royal dockyards who have radiation dose records maintained on computer by the defence radiological protection service, is given in the table. A more detailed breakdown for employees ceasing radiation work before the date on which computerised record keeping was introduced is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lifetime dose (milliSieverts)

  Numbers

  Percentage

  0 to 5

  2,318

  35·3

  5 to 10

  714

  10·9

  10 to 15

  485

  7·4

  15 to 20

  332

  5·1

  20 to 30

  463

  7·0

  30 to 40

  352

  5·4

  40 to 50

  255

  3·9

  50 to 100

  794

  12·1

  100 to 200

  574

  8·7

  Over 200

  283

  4·2

  Totals

  6,570

  100·2

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum radiation dose, rounded to the nearest milliSievert, received by any refit worker in one year during the last three decades; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: Rounded to the nearest milliSievert, 88 milliSieverts represents the highest recorded annual dose for any worker at the royal dockyards in the past 10 years. Data for earlier years are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The circumstances of this exposure are described in my earlier reply to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum total radiation dose received by any refit worker over any period, or number of periods, spent as a classified radiation worker; and whether such an individual or individuals are still working as classified radiation workers within nuclear-propelled submarine refit facilities.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The maximum total radiation dose recorded for any worker at the royal dockyards registered in the defence radiological protection service's record keeping system is 775·95 milliSieverts. This total dose accrued over the period June 1953 to March 1982. The man is no longer working, having reached retirement age. Data for personnel ceasing radiation work before 1 January 1979 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the standard radiation exposure measuring device,944
  issued to and worn by refit personnel during all refit operations; and whether the type of measuring device has changed since the onset of the naval nuclear propulsion programme.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The personal radiation dosimeter currently issued to radiation workers monitored for exposure to ionising radiation by the defence radiological protection service, an HSE approved dosimetry service, is the thermoluminescent dosimeter introduced in March 1983. Before this date, and from the onset of the naval nuclear propulsion programme, the photographic film dosimeter was used. Currently, a variety of direct reading dosimeters are used for the monitoring of employees.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total occupational, whole body equivalent, radiation exposure of all refit workers in the United Kingdom in milliSieverts, for each year since the onset of the naval nuclear propulsion programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The cumulative radiation doses of all workers in the royal dockyards, for each of the years 1979 to 1989 inclusive, are shown in the table. These figures include the cumulative radiation doses of employees monitored for exposure to ionising radiations by the local issue of direct reading dosimeters within the refit yards. These latter figures have been supplied by, and are included with the permission of, the dockyard contractors, who assumed responsibility for health and safety of persons employed within the nuclear licensed sites at Rosyth and Devonport on 5 April 1987.

  Data for earlier years are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Cumulative dose (MilliSieverts)

  1989

  6,978

  1988

  5,501

  1987

  6,837

  1986

  8,704

  1985

  11,536

  1984

  16,680

  1983

  13,734

  1982

  11,717

  1981

  15,276

  1980

  18,158

  1979

  17,378

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what limits are adopted for internal organ radiation dose exposure for refit workers.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: All dose limits adopted by the MOD and its contractors comply with the requirements of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 which are listed at schedule 1 of those regulations.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of refit workers are classified as radiation workers; and how these personnel are selected and deemed fit for classification.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: At present about 25 per cent. of workers at the royal dockyards are designated "classified". The criteria against which these employees are selected and designated as classified persons

  945
  are specified in regulation 9 of the Ionising Radiations Regulations. Certification that an employee is fit to be designated as a classified person is provided by an appointed doctor, in accordance with the requirement of regulation 9(3)(b) and regulation 16 of IRR85.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department maintains an agreement with the United States Department of Defence regarding transfer of information and data about nuclear submarine refit accidents, risk or safety of refit workers.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: No.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department's research into morbidity and mortality among refit workers has considered genetic effects which have passed on to offspring due to exposure of refit workers to radiation in the normal course of their duties.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: No such research has been undertaken by my Department.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the refit personnel receiving doses in excess of 15 milliSieverts in two or more consecutive years, or three or more separate annual doses, were thereafter removed from the occupation or positions where they had been or likely would be in future, subject to such doses; and if these personnel were advised of the radiation risk they were undergoing.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: It is not my Department's policy, nor to my knowledge that of any other United Kingdom employer, to remove persons receiving, as a result of their occupational external exposure to ionising radiation, doses in excess of this level, whether in two or more consecutive years or in three or more separate annual doses. With regard to the hazards associated with working with ionising radiation, all personnel who are occupationally exposed receive such information, instructions and training as are required by regulation 12 of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. My Department ensures that such personnel have access to their individual radiation dose records, and receive

  Number of applications since start of scheme

  Grant aid

  Grant committed for future

  £ million

  £ million

  Capital Grants

  2,491

  2·884

  5·973

  Feasibility

  Study Grants

  191

  0·047

  0·131

  Marketing Grants

  43

  0·008

  0·124

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government value the Farm Animal Welfare Council's independent and authoritative advice very highly. The council has provided the impetus for many new welfare measures and will, I am sure, continue to lead the way in its future work.
  946
  appropriate counselling from specialist medical officers and health physics staff as deemed necessary or if requested.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance has been given to trading standards officers on how to detect irradiated food contravening the Trades Description Act.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance has been given to trading standards officers on how to detect irradiated food contravening the Trades Description Act.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance has been given to trading standards officers on how to detect irradiated food contravening the Trades Description Act.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware of a need for specific guidance to local authority officers on this subject. The Government are, however, funding research on the development of detection methods.

  Hatcheries
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to introduce new regulations regarding hatcheries.

  Mr. Maclean
  The measures relating to hatcheries, together with other parts of the salmonella control programme, are being kept under review.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the uptake of the grants available for farm diversification.

  Mr. Curry
  Uptake to the end of February 1990 was as follows:

  Local Government (Agricultural Land Holdings)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the acreage of agricultural land sold during the last financial year by local authorities.

  Mr. Curry
  Details for the last financial year (1989–90) are not yet available. In 1988–89 local authorities in England and Wales sold 887 hectares from their smallholdings estates.
  947
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average size of agricultural holding owned by local authorities in England and Wales; and what was the figure 10 years ago.

  Mr. Curry
  The average size of agricultural holdings owned by local authorities in England and Wales was 22·6 hectares in 1988–89 compared with 18·9 hectares in 1979–80.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Curry
  None of the Ministers in the Ministry have met the chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made to abolish the green pound by 1992.

  Mr. Curry
  As part of this year's farm price review the Commission proposed a further step towards the elimination of the gap between the market and green rates of exchange for the pound.

  Surplus Food and Wine
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise at the next meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers the provision made for the disposal of surplus food and wine in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  As my hon. Friend knows, the United Kingdom has taken the lead over a number of years in pressing for action to be taken to control the level of agricultural surpluses and the cost of the common agricultural policy. We have achieved considerable success and at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers we will be looking to maintain this progress.

  Avoparcin
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to complete the process of deliberations with the European Community over a starch refund under regulation 1009/86 in respect of Avoparcin.

  Mr. Curry
  Additions to the list of products eligible for the Community starch production refund are decided by the Commission using powers exercised under the management committee procedure. I understand that the Commission is considering possible additions to the list, including that of Avoparcin, but is not yet in a position to make any firm proposal to the cereals management committee.

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on access to the countryside.
  948
  Mr. Maclean
  Under section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 we have to balance the interests of promoting an efficient agricultural industry, the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and its enjoyment by the public. It is generally recognised that there is a delicate balance between the increasing demand for public access and its impact upon the countryside and farming. The Ministry's policies are designed to encourage farmers wherever practicable to provide for countryside recreation. To this end, grants are available under the farm diversification grant scheme for farm walks and nature trails and the Ministry, jointly with the Countryside Commission, has published a ploughing code which reminds farmers of their responsibilities in relation to rights of way. Furthermore, we support the Rights of Way (Agricultural Land) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) which seeks to clarify the existing law on rights of way over agricultural land.

  Rabies
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 15 March,Official Report, column 241, how he proposes to implement his plan in the event of a rabies outbreak to bring about the destruction of foxes in the infected area; and what assessment he has made of the impact of any control methods on other animals and bird species.

  Mr. Maclean
  Action taken would depend on the circumstances and the geographical spread of any outbreak. Urban foxes might have to be controlled by shooting and trapping if poisoning were not possible but the main method of destroying foxes in an infected area would involve the use of poisoned bait. Trained Ministry staff would select and mark the baiting points and uneaten baits would be recovered and destroyed. Accidental casualties among other species would be kept to the minimum compatible with the task of stamping out any outbreak of rabies before it became established.

  'At the Farmers Service"
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost to public funds of producing the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/WOAD booklet, "At the Farmers Service"; how many copies were produced; how they are being distributed; and whether any charge per copy is being required of the recipients.

  Mr. Curry
  The new edition of "At the Farmers Service" was produced using desk-top publishing techniques to provide value for money and make future revisions easier. Production costs were £20,000 for 50,000 copies, giving a unit cost of 40p per copy. The booklet is distributed free to members of the farming community and other interested parties.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place a copy of his Department's set-aside application forms in the Library.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes, I have done so.

  Healthier Eating
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much he has spent on research into healthier eating(a) within his Department and (b) to outside organisations for (i) 1989–90 and (ii) 1990–91; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much money he intends to spend in the promotion of a healthier diet in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how much money was spent by his Department in the promotion of a healthier diet in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the publicity efforts of his Department to promote a healthier diet; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) whether he will launch a nationwide campaign to encourage a healthier diet, using leaflets for widespread distribution, and other promotional methods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department, the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority are now in the final stages of preparing a booklet setting out a simple set of dietary guidelines intended to help consumers choose an overall balanced diet. The guidelines are targeted in the first instance at those giving dietary advice, for example, health professional teachers and the media, but will apply to the general public. It is intended to adapt them for other specific audiences such as school children, the elderly and pregnant women.

  In addition to this specific initiative my Department monitors the nutritional quality of the household diet through the national food survey and provides essential information on the nutrient content of particular foods. We have produced the "Manual of Nutrition" which describes all the important nutrients, their roles in the body and the foods that provide them. We commissioned jointly with the Department of Health the "Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults" which will be published shortly. We also recognise the importance of food labels in providing information and have pressed for EC legislation which would require more nutritional information to be shown. Our free booklet "Look at the Label" on understanding food labels explains the significance of the nutritional declarations which are increasingly being made on food labels and relates them to dietary advice.

  The directly attributable cost of the guidelines to my Department was about £14,000 in 1989–90 and a further £20,000 has been allocated for 1990–91. The total cost of work to promote a healthy and nutritious diet cannot be separately identified, but the cost of "Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults" was over £1 million.

  In 1989–90 my Department spent £900,000 on research into applied nutrition and £200,000 on monitoring nutrients in food. This work was contracted with outside organisations. It represents only part of my Department's total research expenditure (£8·6 million) on food safety and hygiene which is carried out so that consumers may have a safe and nutritious food supply from which they may choose a healthy diet. Figures for 1990–91 are not yet available.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in 950
  respect of those research projects which have been identified as near market which subsequently fail to attract industrial support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Near-market research that does not attract industry support will have to cease. Work that is close to commercial application should be funded by industry, which is the direct beneficiary and best able to judge priorities for this work. Public expenditure is better redeployed on basic science, strategic research and research aimed at benefiting and protecting the community at large.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 9 February,Official Report, column 824, which projects have so far attracted near-market funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The projects listed in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 9 February 1990 will be funded by my Department until their completion. This will be by 31 March 1991 or earlier as appropriate. The areas being researched by these projects have been identified as near market, that is, suitable for industrial funding. I am pleased to be able to say that the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) will be funding from 1990–91 onwards a programme of research that will cover many of these areas of research.

  Poultry
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), 13 February,Official Report, column 200, what evidence he has that the security of poultry premises could be jeopardised by open registers; and if he will now review his decision.

  Mr. Maclean
  The decision to remove the provisions in question was based on general concern about security rather than specific threats. I am satisfied that the action taken was a sensible precaution which does not prejudice the effectiveness of the salmonella controls.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund grants have been paid to Unigate plc in respect of poultry processing plants.

  Mr. Curry
  No EAGGF grants have been paid to Unigate plc or any of its subsidiary companies in respect of poultry-processing plants.

  Soil Preservation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure the survival of rendzina soils subject to arable cropping; and what information he possesses concerning their degradation.

  Mr. Curry
  The special problems of rendzinas, and other soil types in England and Wales, are well understood by soil scientists of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. These specialists are located at the regional offices and sub-centres of MAFF and WOAD, and are available to provide advice and information on all aspects of soil care to all who require it.
  951
  The Department continues to fund research on a very wide range of soil-related problems. The many facets of soil degradation, such as heavy-metal contamination, erosion and acidification, are included in these studies.

  Information is published in suitable format, for example, in scientific journals, from individual projects within this programme, as soon as conclusions can be drawn with confidence.

  In addition to the work funded by my Department, there is a large amount of information available from other sources, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. It would not be possible to draw all this together for presentation, except at inordinate cost.

  Agricultural Wages
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet representatives of the Agricultural Workers Union to discuss wages and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Ministers from this Department have no plans at present to meet representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union agriculture sector trade group.

  Bovine Offal
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Truro, 2 February,Official Report, column 409, on what information he bases his statement that industry's policy is not to use those bovine offals currently banned for use in human consumption.

  Mr. Maclean
  The statement was based on the knowledge of the pet food industry that this Department has built up through its normal work in relation to this sector.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to conduct periodic surveys of broiler flocks to establish the incidence of salmonella.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: Under the Government's salmonella control programme measures are being taken to reduce the level of salmonella infection in the broiler production chain. The impact of these measures on the incidence of salmonella will be kept under review.

  Artioposthia Triangulata
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the spread and effects of Artioposthia triangulata in Northern Ireland;

  (2) what information his Department has as to how Artioposthia triangulata first entered Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what studies have been commissioned about the spread and effects of Artioposthia triangulata; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what studies his Department has commissioned into the effect of Artioposthia triangulata on the earthworm population of Northern Ireland and if he will make a statement.
  952
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The New Zealand planarian (flatworm), Artioposthia triangulata, has colonised Northern Ireland. It feeds on earthworms and may be capable of reducing populations. It is found in all counties in Northern Ireland and has been associated with the disappearance of worms from grassland.

  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland has a programme of research into the distribution and biology of Artioposthia triangulata in Northern Ireland. Associated with this research, scientists are also monitoring reported sightings elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Research is necessary to define both the threat and the need for control measures.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning Grants)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about decommissioning grants available to fishing vessels and the amount put in by European Community sources for decommissioning for(a) Holland, (b) France, (c) Denmark, (d) the United Kingdom and (e) Spain.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 February 1990, c. 990-01]: The information supplied by the Commission is as follows:

  £ million

  Denmark

  1·64

  France

  nil

  Netherlands

  1·87

  Spain

  nil

  United Kingdom

  nil

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  City Regulation
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on City regulation.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on City regulation.

  Mr. Ridley
  Regulation of investment business is, for the most part, the responsibility of the Securities and Investment Board, which is the designated agency under the Financial Services Act 1986. Other aspects of City activity are regulated under other arrangements, such as the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and the Banking Act 1987.

  Drink Prices
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the decision of the brewers to increase the price of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the decision of the brewers to increase the price of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the decision of the brewers to increase the price of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks to the Office of Fair Trading.
  953
  Mr. Redwood
  No. We have introduced a number of measures to increase competition in this area, and the Office of Fair Trading is already taking steps to keep the situation under review.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the OECD countries which had a more favourable trade balance in manufactures than Great Britain in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the OECD countries which had a more favourable trade balance in manufactures than Great Britain in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest complete data refer to 1987 when 11 of the 23 OECD countries had surpluses or smaller deficits than the United Kingdom as a percentage of their total trade in manufactures.

  The list is as follows:

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the OECD countries which had a more favourable trade balance in manufactures than Great Britain in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is in the following table:

  Trade in Manufactures1 1987

  Balance as a percentage of Total Trade2 in Manufacture

  Japan

  61·5

  Germany

  24·3

  Italy

  14·1

  Sweden

  6·5

  Finland

  4·1

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  3·4

  Switzerland

  0·7

  Ireland

  -0·5

  France

  -2·2

  Austria

  -4·2

  Netherlands

  -5·3

  United Kingdom

  -8·4

  Denmark

  -11·0

  Canada

  -12·0

  Portugal

  -14·3

  Spain

  -14·9

  Turkey

  -16·7

  Norway

  -30·9

  Greece

  -38·8

  New Zealand

  -54·1

  Australia

  -57·9

  Iceland

  -69·7

  Notes:

  1 Standard International Trade Classification, Sections 5 to 8.

  2 Exports plus imports.

  Source: OECD Series A.

  IT Skills Shortages
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the information technology sector on skills shortages.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been a number of representations from the information technology sector, in the past,954
  with regard to IT skills shortages. In recognising this my Department has supported a number of initiatives aimed at reducing such shortages, including support of up to £440,000 over three years for the recently launched Women into Information Technology (WIT) campaign where this support is appropriately matched by industry.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the information technology sector on skills shortages.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the information technology sector on skills shortages.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been a number of representations from the information technology sector, in the past, with regard to IT skills shortages. In recognising this my Department has supported a number of initiatives aimed at reducing such shortages, including support of up to £440,000 over three years for the recently launched Women into Information Technology (WIT) campaign where this support is appropriately matched by industry.

  My Department also has an Information Technology Advisory Board (ITAB) with representatives from industry, commerce and academia. One of the ITAB's support committees advises specifically on education and training and comments on IT skills issues.

  CBI Regional Bodies
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met a regional body of the Confederation of British Industry; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met a regional body of the Confederation of British Industry; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met a regional body of the Confederation of British Industry; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department maintains regular contact with the CBI at all levels on a wide range of matters relating to industry.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to encourage research and development in information technology.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to encourage research and development in information technology.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to encourage research and development in information technology.

  Mr. Forth
  I am pleased to announce Government support of £34 million for new national collaborative research and development programmes in the following areas of IT: safety-critical software, the application of
  955
  parallel processing and open distributed processing. They will be jointly funded by the Department of Trade and Industry and the science and engineering research council.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the training of senior staff in the application of information technology.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the training of senior staff in the application of information technology.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the training of senior staff in the application of information technology.

  Mr. Forth
  No. I have nothing to add to my answers of 14 March 1990 at column 292.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the directors of the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the director of the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the director of the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend met the Director General of Fair Trading on 2 April. There are currently no further meetings planned with Ministers in this Department.

  National Economic Development Council
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the director general of the National Economic Development Council; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the director general of the National Economic Development Council; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the director general of the National Economic Development Council; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department has frequent contacts with NEDO officials on a wide range of business matters and I last chaired the council on 4 April. I have no plans to meet the director general again at present.

  Glass Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that all the conditions of BS 6262 on glass safety are made mandatory without delay.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that all the conditions of BS 6262 on glass safety are made mandatory without delay.
  956
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that all the conditions of BS 6262 on glass safety are made mandatory without delay.

  Mr. Forth
  I propose to approve British Standard 6262 (code of practice for glazing in Buildings) for the purposes of the general safety requirement under section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 on publication of amendments to this standard. The standard will specify the use of safety glass in features such as patio doors, panels beside doors and other low-level areas where the risk of injury is greatest.

  Textiles
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet his European counterparts to discuss the textile industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Industry Council which I attended discussed the Commission annual report on the state of the textile industry on 13 March. No further EC discussion has been arranged at the moment but the subject frequently comes up in bilateral contacts. In addition, my noble Friend the Minister for Trade is this week attending an informal meeting of world Trade Ministers in Mexico with Ministers from some other EC member states, which will review progress in the GATT Uruguay round including the negotiations on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet his European counterparts to discuss the textile industry.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet his European counterparts to discuss the textile industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Industry Council which my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry attended discussed the Commission annual report on the state of the textile industry on 13 March. No further EC discussion has been arranged at the moment but the subject frequently comes up in bilateral contacts. In addition, my noble Friend the Minister for Trade is this week attending an informal meeting of world Trade Ministers in Mexico with Ministers from some other EC member states, which will review progress in the GATT Uruguay round including the negotiations on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Poland
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give figures for the United Kingdom's trade balance with Poland.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if he will give figures for the United Kingdom's trade balance with Poland.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1989 the crude deficit in United Kingdom visible trade with Poland £134 million.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his assessment of the causes of the relative performance of each region in terms of constant value manufacturing output since 1979.
  957
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his assessment of the causes of the relative performance of each region in terms of constant value manufacturing output since 1979.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his assessment of the causes of the relative performance of each region in terms of constant value manufacturing output since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are many factors underlying regional performance, including the state of the world economy, and regional industrial structure. Recent indices show continuing growth in all regions of the United Kingdom.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss a range of topics concerning the regulation of financial services as frequently as is necessary. No date has been fixed for the next such meeting.

  Confederation of British Industry
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no immediate plans to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the Confederation of British Industry when he chaired a meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 4 April 1990. The main items discussed on that occasion were business and the environment, the electronics industry and the United Kingdom's trade performance.

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he first became aware of Dr. Barry Richardson's research into cot deaths; and what action he then took to alert the public.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he first became aware of Dr, Barry Richardson's research into cot deaths; and what action he then took to alert the public.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department of Health wrote to my Department about Dr. Barry Richardson's research on 7 June 1989. A copy of Dr. Richardson's report dated June 1989 was received on 12 June. As a direct result the laboratory of the Government chemist was asked to undertake a scientific assessment of this research work.

  In a written reply on 9 March, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health stated that a group of independent experts had been asked to investigate further claims by Dr. Richardson about emission of toxic gases from soiled mattresses taking account of the assessment still being carried out by the laboratory of the Government chemist.

  I shall await the findings of this expert working group to see if there are any implications for the use of fire-resistant treatments in the manufacture of nursery furniture.

  Manufactured Goods (Exports)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of exports of manufactured goods Japan in 1989.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of exports of manufactured goods to Japan in 1989.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of exports of manufactured goods to Japan in 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  The level of United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods to Japan in 1989 was £1,938 million, an increase of 29 per cent. over 1988.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Trade and Industry what has been the growth in exports of manufactured goods to Japan since 1979.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the growth in exports of manufactured goods to Japan since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  Exports of manufactured goods to Japan have risen from £481 million in 1979 to £1,938 million in 1989, an increase of 303 per cent.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the growth in exports of manufactured goods to the European Community since 1979.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the growth in exports of manufactured goods to the European Community since 1979.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the growth in exports of manufactured goods to the European Community since 1979.
  959
  Mr. Redwood
  Exports of manufactured goods to the European Community have risen from £13 billion in 1979 to £38 billion in 1989, an increase of £25 billion.

  Invisibles
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for British invisibles in the European market after 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  The single market offers both a challenge and an opportunity to British business. This applies to businesses generating invisible trade as much as to those generating visible trade. The opportunities are great: according to estimates published by the Commission in "European Economy" in March 1988, the Community services sector is expected to contribute about 30 per cent. of the gains from the completion of the single market. The outcome for British invisibles will depend on the dynamic response of individual businesses.

  Consumer Guarantees Bill
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has had on the Consumer Guarantees Bill.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has had on the Consumer Guarantees Bill.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has had on the Consumer Guarantees Bill.

  Mr. Forth
  At the Committee Stage of the Bill I undertook to inform members of the Committee of the representations I had received about various aspects of the Bill, where I had the agreement of the parties concerned to do so. This I have done. Further representations received since Committee were made in confidence and it would be inappropriate to give details of them.

  Consumer Demand
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what effect he expects falling consumer demand to have on British industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  Prospects for the economy to mid-1991, including manufacturing production, are contained in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1990–91 laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20 March 1990. Chart 3.8 of that statement forecasts continuing growth in consumer expenditure in 1990 and the first half of 1991, but at a slower rate than in 1988 and 1989. The forecasts suggest maintained levels of manufacturing production in 1990 and modest growth of 0·75 per cent. in the first half of 1991.

  Product Safety
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has as to how many cases have been brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 concerning product safety which were already covered by an approved standard.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has as to how 960
  many cases have been brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 concerning product safety which were already covered by an approved standard.

  Mr. Forth
  Enforcement of the safety provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is mainly the responsibility of the trading standards departments of local authorities. A number of suppliers have been successfully prosecuted for breaches of the general safety requirement, but information is not available on whether these cases involved an approved standard.

  West Germany
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of United Kingdom trade with West Germany.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of United Kingdom trade with West Germany.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of United Kingdom trade with West Germany.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1989 United Kingdom imports from West Germany were £20 billion; United Kingdom exports to West Germany were £11·1 billion. Invisible trade is not separately recorded by country.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the United Kingdom balance of trade with West Germany in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1989 imports of manufactured goods from West Germany exceeded United Kingdom manufactured exports to that country by £9·6 billion. Invisibles are not separately recorded by country.

  Post Office
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Post Office.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Post Office.

  Mr. Forth
  I will next meet the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, on 4 May.

  Tin Mining
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the tin mining industry in Cornwall.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The respective managements have decided to cease operations at the Geevor tin mine immediately and at the Wheal Jane tin mine at the end of the year. These decisions appear inevitable given the prevailing low tin prices and the absence of indications of the substantial and sustained improvement in the tin price required for these mines to continue in production.

  The remaining tin mine, South Crofty, has been the subject of a major capital investment programme designed to lower costs. This had been assisted by substantial DTI

  961
  loans. That investment programme, and the geological conditions of the mine, mean that South Crofty is better placed to withstand low prices.

  Shipbuilding
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway).

  Exporters
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the recent performance of United Kingdom exporters of goods and services.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have seen a significant and sustained growth in the United Kingdom's export performance. The value of non-oil exports doubled between 1979 and 1988. They increased again by 16 per cent. in 1989. In the three months to February, the value of goods exported was 5 per cent. higher than in the previous three months. This is a remarkable success, achieved in the face of increasingly strong competition, on which British exporters of goods and services are to be congratulated.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any new proposals to assist British exporters.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any new proposals to assist British exporters.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on 14 March to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) at columns 477–79.

  Engineering Products
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in engineering products.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in engineering products.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in engineering products.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The crude deficit on the balance of trade for engineering products was £8·2 billion in 1989.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regional selective assistance grants and regional development grants were awarded to firms in the north-west of England in 1988–89, at what cost to his Department.
  962
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the financial year 1988–89 my Department made offers of regional selective assistance for 340 projects, and approved regional development grants under the revised scheme for 2,036 projects, in the north-west region. The value of these offers and proposals was £133·4 million which is the amount expected to be paid if the projects proceed as planned.Note: The north-west region includes the counties of Cheshire, Cumbria, Lancashire, Greater Manchester arid Merseyside and the High Peak district of Derbyshire.

  Car Manufacturers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the major car manufacturers; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the major car manufacturers; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary of State and I regularly meet the major car manufacturers to discuss a variety of issues.

  Footwear
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from the footwear industry regarding import penetration of the United Kingdom footwear trade.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have received a small number of representations about footwear issues, including the level of footwear imports.

  EC Trade and Industry Ministers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet his counterparts in the European Community; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet his counterparts in the European Community; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  I maintain regular contacts with my opposite numbers in the European Commission across a wide range of issues.

  Government Special Shares
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has any plans to extend the use of Government special shares.

  Mr. Redwood
  The government have a general prejudice against the creation of special shares, but recognise that a special share may be warranted by the particular circumstances of a privatised company. Each case is assessed on its merits.

  Steel
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.
  963
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) earlier today.

  West German Trade and Industry Minister
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his West German counterpart; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  I last met my West German counterpart, Dr. Haussmann, at the Anglo-German summit on 30 March. A range of issues were discussed.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest estimate of the proportion of larger building societies having tied arrangements with insurance companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  Eight of the 10 largest building societies have a "tied" arrangement with a single insurance company. However, seven of these eight also operate an independent financial adviser arm.

  Sir Leon Brittan
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Vice-President of the European Commission, Sir Leon Brittan; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  I maintain regular contacts with my opposite numbers in the European Commission across a wide range of issues.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the trade deficit.

  Mr. Redwood
  Exports from the United Kingdom are running at record levels. The present deficit has been caused by excessive growth in domestic demand in relation to domestic industrial capacity. It is therefore a macro-economic problem which will be resolved by the sound macro-economic policies which the Government are pursuing.

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the stock exchange; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers meet the chairman of the stock exchange whenever appropriate to discuss topics of mutual interest.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the European Economic Community countries with which the United Kingdom had a trade surplus in manufactured goods in 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1989 the United Kingdom had a manufacturing trade surplus with Ireland, Spain and Greece.

  RECHAR Scheme
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many jobs have been lost because of coal mine closures in the south Leeds area since 1 January 1984; if the RECHAR grants scheme can be applied to this area; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will consider in any further discussions with the European Commission on RECHAR allocations that area of the Normanton constituency which is the former coal mining area of south-east Leeds, for allocation of grant; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list the areas which have been allocated grants through the RECHAR system.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The south-east Leeds area lost approximately 3,000 coal mining jobs since 1 January 1984. The Government have therefore already proposed to the European Commission that it should be among the areas to benefit from the RECHAR initiative for European structural fund grants to coal-mining areas. The Commission's decision is due by 27 April.

  Recycling
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the research and development projects being undertaken by his Department and related agencies into recycling, giving the cost of each project.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has commissioned a range of projects to aid the development of its policy on recycling. Some have been placed with Warren Spring laboratory, including an examination of present market barriers to recycling in the United Kingdom, and others with management consultants, including investigations into CFC recovery, recycling and destruction, and into the problems of scrap tyre disposal. The Department believes that those companies and organisations directly involved in materials recycling should themselves be the prime initiators of R and D in this area, but stands ready to consider helping worthwhile projects.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many animal experiments for cosmetics took place in the United Kingdom in 1978, 1988 and 1989; if these exceed in number the essential minimum referred to by him in his reply to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 6 March,Official Report, column 588; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Statistics on the safety testing of cosmetics and toiletries are published by the Home Office. The latest information is contained in table 3 of the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 1988" and similar information was published in previous years. The number of procedures carried out for the safety testing of cosmetic substances is determined by the requirements of current regulations which are kept to the minimum essential for consumer safety.

  Unigate plc
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants in aid have been paid to Unigate plc in respect of poultry-processing plants.
  965
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  St. Ivel Farm Foods Ltd. (formerly Unigate Poultry Ltd.), a subsidiary of Unigate plc, is receiving regional aid in respect of a poultry processing plant at Scunthorpe.

  Payments of regional development grant towards the project have totalled £3,729,000 to date. The company also accepted an offer of £10,558,000 of regional selective assistance and the first payment of grant under that offer was made in the quarter January to March 1989.

  Details of the RDG payments and the RSA offer were published in British Business in accordance with standing arrangements.

  Cosmetics
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's policy in respect of the number of clearances given to additives for use in cosmetics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The "positive" or approved lists of colourants, preservatives and ultra filters are agreed by member states at Brussels on the advice of the EC scientific committee on cosmetology. Since these are potentially more hazardous classes of ingredients the SCC normally asks for a full range of animal test data to safeguard the user.

  ECGD (Relocation)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it a criterion for the privatisation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department that the consequent relocation of offices from Cardiff, should take into account areas in Wales of high unemployment and poverty.

  Mr. Ridley
  There is currently no proposal for relocating the offices away from Cardiff nor do I expect one: but this would be a matter for the management after privatisation.

  London United Investments
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to satisfy himself that the accounts of London United Investments plc in respect of the financial years ended in 1988 and 1989 showed a true and fair view of the profit and loss accounts and balance sheets and complied with the Companies Acts.

  Mr. Redwood
  The accounts of London United Investments plc for 1987 and for 1988 were audited by Messrs. Peat, Marwick, McLintock who reported that the financial statements of the company gave a true and fair view of its affairs and had been properly prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 1985 and that the consolidated financial statements had been properly prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 applicable to insurance companies.966
  The group's accounts for 1989 are not yet due. In another answer to my hon. Friend today I have set out the action taken by my Department.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department first sought an actuarial report by Tillinghast into the insurance liabilities of London United Investments plc or its subsidiary companies; what were the dates when the report or reports were received by his Department; what were the dates when his officials took action on each report; and what was the nature of the action taken in each case.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department required an actuarial report into Walbrook and its subsidiaries in January 1989. This report by Tillinghast was received in June 1989. The Department after consulting the Government Actuary's Department put various questions to LUI in August and September 1989. In October the DTI told LUI that it would require a further actuarial report covering all the United Kingdom insurance subsidiaries and that the Department needed to discuss a substantial reduction in the new business taken on by Walbrook. None of the other United Kingdom insurance companies in the group were authorised to take on new insurance business. The second actuarial report has not yet been received by LUI. The regulatory action to stop new business being taken by Walbrook, announced at 8.30 am on 26 March, was on the basis of Tillinghast's preliminary work which Schroders, the recently appointed merchant bank advisers to LUI reported to the Department on Saturday 24 March 1990.

  Illegal Profits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to provide that anyone, including financial institutions, who knowingly conceals the origins of illegal profits, will face a fine or imprisonment.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is already a serious offence to launder the proceeds of drug trafficking and terrorist funds, and there are extensive powers both to enable the police and customs officers to investigate such activities and to require banks and other financial institutions to report suspicious transactions to those authorities. The powers to combat drug money laundering have been further strengthened by the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, which also contains provisions to prevent drug traffickers evading the controls on money laundering by importing or exporting their proceeds in the form of cash.

  It is also an offence to handle stolen goods or the proceeds of stolen goods; and those who do so may be held to have acted as accessories, conspirators or aiders and abetters in relation to the crime. Additionally, part VI cif the Criminal Justice Act 1988 frees banks and others from obligations of confidentiality when they report voluntarily transactions involving funds which they suspect are derived from criminal activity.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMVTTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

The Independent Living Fund
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
What extra resources have been or will be made available to the Independent Living Fund; and whether such provision has satisfied the trustees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords., my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled announced on 3rd April that, provided he could reach agreement with the fund's trustees on a sensible limiting of the scope of the fund, a further £8 million would be made available for the current year. This would bring the provision to £32 million for 1990-91, an increase of a third in the current year's allocation and a more than sixfold increase in the resources originally envisaged for the fund. My right honourable friend has had a preliminary discussion with the trustees following this announcement and is now awaiting their considered response.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I apologise to the House. On the Order Paper my Question should refer to the "Independent Living Fund" and not "Independent Living Foundation". I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. But does he agree that the Government's original estimate of the number of people who would claim from the fund was too low? Am I correct in thinking that the extra amount will mean that the fund will not be suspended, that fresh awards will be possible and that those already receiving help will not be denied it in the future? How long does he think the trustees will need before
2
they can let the Government know whether they are satisfied with the amount? They might not want to serve as trustees if they cannot get enough money to satisfy a group of people who are the most vulnerable in society.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that existing beneficiaries will continue to receive care. All the trustees have said is that they will have to suspend consideration of new applications as from 9th April. Other than that I can only say that we are awaiting the response of the trustees. As regards the future of the fund, we made clear in our report on disability benefits, The Way Ahead, in January that wider arrangements for care in the community to take effect from April 1991 envisaged care packages devised by local authorities on an individual basis. We would therefore expect people seeking help after that date to be able to look to local authorities. But we recognise that authorities will need time to develop the detailed assessments and complex care packages that will be required. We would therefore not expect them to take on the entire caseload of the ILF in April 1991.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the noble Lord spell out to the House exactly how the Independent Living Fund is supposed to limit the scope of its awards? Can he say which groups of severely disabled people will lose out as a result of this decision?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that I can spell out exactly how the trustees can limit the scope of the fund. As I said, we are awaiting their response. As the noble Lord will know, the fund was originally set up partly in recognition of the fact that with our 1988 reforms some severely disabled people would no longer be able to claim the additional requirements payments for domestic support. The fund has never been envisaged as being the only source of income for those who are disabled and might make use of it. There are a range of benefits available within the social security system as well as help from local authorities and health authorities.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the beneficiaries of the fund are the severely disabled.

3
Surely the Government do not want to be seen again as trying to deprive those worst off in the community. I should have thought that a caring government would have wanted to be much more generous than appears to be the case from the answers this afternoon.
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords. That is why we originally set up the Independent Living Fund and that is why we have expanded the amount of money available to it over the past three years. In the current year it will be something in the order of £24 million. That is why we have offered an extra £8 million to the fund if it can find some way of limiting the scope. The fund was expanding beyond those who were originally covered by the eligibility criteria.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government originally underestimated the number of people who would be claiming from the fund?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as we have had to increase the amount available from £5 million to £10 million and now to £24 million, that would appear to be the case.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the amount that the Government are making available is exactly half the amount that the trustees asked for in order for the fund to be able to continue?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have made an offer of £8 million. That is in addition to £24 million available for this year, which was more than double what was available last year.

MoD Bill Payment System
2.43 p.m.
Lord Ironside Lord Ironside asked Her Majesty's Government:
What alternative arrangements will be made by the Ministry of Defence to make certified payments to small contractors during the installation and commissioning of the new computerised payment system in Liverpool.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, we have decided to impose a freeze on our normal bill paying arrangements for a four-week period during October, when the present computer system will be replaced. Special arrangements have been made to ensure that payments are made immediately before and after the freeze period to ensure that any delays are kept to an absolute minimum. Contractors have been given six months' notice of these arrangements to enable them to submit bills earlier than normal.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very informative Answer. I hope that all the firms concerned will take note of what he has said. I speak as a member of the Council of the Defence
4
Manufacturers Association. I am sure my noble friend recognises the deep concern felt by small firms over this planned four-week stoppage. Is he aware that on a pro rata basis to the MoD yearly spend something like £150 million per week is being put on hold? Can he therefore give the House an undertaking that small firms will not be penalised by this stoppage, which is not of their making?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that the Chief of Defence Procurement wrote to the trade associations in both January and February advising them of our plans and giving details of them. They are aimed, so far as is possible, at minimising the effects of the freeze. Further details will be sent to all individual contractors later this month.
As regards the small contractors, because of the number with which we deal and the size and complexity of this conversion task, I cannot give an undertaking that we shall make special arrangements for individual firms who may have special difficulties. However, I can say that, if severe circumstances arise which are considered suitable for re-examination, then that will be the case and they will be treated with sympathy.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister say how many small contractors are likely to be involved in the problems that he just mentioned? Can he also tell us how long it will be before the installation is finally in place and in running order? Will he bear m mind that such difficulties also arise over a range of economic tendering issues at both central and local government level where other industries are involved? I am thinking especially of the building industry. Small businessmen are put at a disadvantage by having to wait for payment of their bills not just from large contractors but very often from local and central government sources.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, the exact number of small contractors who will be affected by these particular circumstances. However, I can say that most contractors will be able to submit bills for payment immediately before the freeze period which begins on 1st October. Contractors will submit their later bills in accordance with a specified timetable during the freeze period. These will be paid on 5th November. The four-weekly cycle will then be restored for all contractors immediately thereafter.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that government are notorious for being very bad payers of bills —and that applies whichever party is in power. Small contractors undertake a job of work and it is inspected; but it is not until it is completely finished and passed that the bills are paid. Why cannot we devise a system which would ensure that if a contractor is doing a job and doing it pretty well he will be paid half-way through the contract for work already completed? Then, when the job is finally completed and inspected, he should be paid the balance straightaway. Such a system would stop this nonsense of holding matters up.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord on the point that he makes. Contractors working for the Ministry of Defence normally receive a very speedy and reliable payment service from the Liverpool office. Indeed, I understand that bills are normally paid within one week of receipt. We have done our best to limit the effects of the payment freeze and to maintain an acceptable level of service during this difficult month of conversion.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the problem is perhaps the contractor's fault if he does not pay the sub-contractor quickly?
The Earl of ArranMy Lords, obviously I cannot comment on specific circumstances.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the question which my noble friend Lord Mellish put to the Minister has not been answered. Does not the Ministry of Defence have a system of interim payment for small firms whose cashflows may not be great—indeed, many such firms are on the verge of bankruptcy, although they are very good firms—which could be applied in cases where the work is being properly conducted and confirmed as such by the Ministry's inspectors? Will he deal with the principle of interim payment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hoped that I had already made clear that if there are circumstances in which it is thought that there is justification for giving sympathetic consideration, especially to small contractors, then such consideration will be given.

Sterling Exchange Rate
2.49 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to allow the sterling exchange rate to be determined by market forces.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government favour a strong exchange rate, although there will inevitably be short-term market fluctuations.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. However, can he say whether the Government will continue with the policy of high interest rates and Bank of England intervention to buck the market; or will they float the pound in order to join the exchange rate mechanism? Can we have a definition as to which of those policies they intend to adopt?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are more answers to the noble Lord's Question than one might presume at first instance. The exchange rate is a factor that we take into account but there are many others. We would all like to see interest rates come down. I know that the noble Lord will agree with me that inflation is the most important factor to get
6
under control and to keep down. As regards the ERM, the Government have made their position very clear. However, as the noble Lord will know, a great deal of our trade is with countries which do not belong to the European Community or the ERM.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, under Mr. Lawson, the Government were forced to abandon shadowing the deutschmark. While they hover on the brink of the exchange rate mechanism, now into its 12th year, can the noble Earl say whether the Government have an exchange rate policy? If so, will he tell us what it is?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have an exchange rate policy. We favour a strong exchange rate policy.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the Government have an exchange rate policy, would they care to tell us whether interest rates are being kept high because of market forces, because of the need to bring down inflation or because of the need to defend the pound?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know from his great experience in these matters, interest rates are high in order to bring down inflation. We have therefore a tight monetary policy as well as a fiscal policy.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. However, in view of what the noble Earl has said, is it because the Government favour a strong exchange rate policy that the pound has weakened by about 10 per cent. in the past few months?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean by "few"? Since the beginning of the year the pound has remained remarkably stable.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that, as both parties have discovered when in government, ultimately all exchange rates are determined by the market?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we do want a strong exchange rate. That has been made clear by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This affects the domestic money situation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that joining the ERM is not a panacea for all our economic ills? Nor will it necessarily affect the value of the pound abroad. Is the Minister further aware, and does he agree, that France, which is within the ERM, has an unemployment rate of 9.5 per cent. whereas in this country the rate is 5.8 per cent.?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am on exactly the same ground as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. We have made it abundantly clear that joining the ERM is not a panacea. We have made clear the terms on which we will join. But it is worth noting, as the noble Lord has said, that some

7
countries outside the ERM have a much lower unemployment rate and have reduced inflation much more quickly.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept on behalf of everyone in the House sincere regrets at the untimely death of his noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne? During the past 18 months he showed exemplary courage in the face of adversity. He will be missed not only by his own party, but by the whole House.
As regards the various answers which the noble Earl has given, can he explain how it is in the interests of industry that the pound sterling should be artifically maintained at a higher rate than its real competitive rate in the world? Does the Minister really think that maintaining a strong pound—so beloved of the City which does very well out of it —is in the ultimate interest of the exporters of goods from this country and also of the balance of payments?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble Lord said about my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. I am sure that all the House will want to be associated with his remarks.
As regards the noble Lord's question, a lower pound tends to lead to higher import prices in sterling terms thus giving domestic producers more headroom to pass on increases: a higher pound has the opposite effect. We prefer a strong pound for all the reasons I have given.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that a continued policy of high interest rates punishes very savagely millions of British people who are trying to buy their own homes including those who were encouraged to buy their council houses but who are now having to leave them because they cannot pay the high mortgages? In view of these factors, together with the harm that is being done to British industry, does the Minister not agree that it is about time that the Government reviewed a policy which continues to harass home purchasers and certain parts of the British industry?
The Eari of Caithness: My Lords, that is a separate question. I believe that the noble Lord will agree with me that it is very important that we get inflation down and have it firmly under control again. Inflation will be more damaging to pensioners' saving, as in the 1970s, besides affecting young people who are trying to buy their own homes, than temporary high interest rates. Of course we would like to reduce interest rates as soon as possible; but we must first reduce inflation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the Government are committed to joining the exchange rate mechanism in due course, can the noble Earl indicate whether they have formed a view about joining this year, next year or at some later date?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is very difficult to prejudge when exactly the time will be right to join because conditions have to be right at that time.
8
The conditions are not right at the moment, but when they are, we shall join.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is the choice between a strong and a weak pound any different from the choice between shooting oneself in the left rather than the right foot?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, I believe that there is a difference.

Charge Capping: Effects on Community Care
2.57 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the effect of charge capping certain local authorities on their ability to plan for the provision of community care after April 1991 as proposed in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the determination of central government grant to local authorities and the Government's view of total appropriate local authority spending for 1990-91 took account of resources for authorities to undertake the necessary preparatory work to implement our new community care policy after April 1991. Charge capping applies only to those authorities whose budgets for 1990–91 are excessive, in the opinion of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The proposed caps are in his view fair and reasonable in the individual circumstances of the authorities concerned.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that the Association of Directors of Social Services has reported that one-third of local authorities and social service departments have had to implement service reductions and also abandon some new developments in community care as a result of the poll tax? I am referring to authorities which have not been charge-capped. The authorities which have been charge-capped now face the prospect of failing in their statutory duties to provide community care. How do the Government suggest that these authorities resolve that problem?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as always, it will be for individual authorities to consider how to make the most cost-effective use of the funds that are available to them in the light of local circumstances and overall legislative requirements. We believe that that kind of approach is the one which is most likely to lead to the innovative local, diverse and flexible service that we all seek in bringing in these changes. If it is any reassurance to the noble Lord, I remind him that local authority PSS spending has increased by 38 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. There is no reason to believe that that trend will be reversed.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lord, in replying to that question, can the Minister say whether rate capping will in any way limit the new responsibilities that local authorities will assume for caring for the mentally ill and other people who become their responsibility after the Bill becomes law?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is for those authorities that have been capped to determine their own spending priorities within their revised budgets in the light of legislative requirements and local needs. However, as I said before, we see no reason to believe that the trend of increased funding for social services will be reversed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that most of the authorities that have been capped are in areas of the country which suffer the greatest deprivation, and that apart from education which accounts for just over 50 per cent. of local authority spending, those local authority departments which spend by far the highest amounts are social services departments which will have to take on board new duties under the terms of the new Bill? If sufficient funds are not made available, we shall see more disabled and mentally ill people discharged onto the streets, but it will be the local authorities that will be blamed for that situation instead of the Government.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I see no reason for the noble Lord to spread alarm and despondency in that connection. In the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the proposed charge capping is reasonable and appropriate on the basis of the information available to him in all the circumstances of each authority concerned. The charge capping should not involve any disruption to services. However, as regards future plans for community care, it will be the duty of local authorities to consult in the preparation of their plans and to publish their community care plans. If anything should go wrong, the Secretary of State has powers of direction to intervene.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, it is all very well for local authorities to publish their plans, but how can they pursue those plans if they do not have the wherewithal to carry them out?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government have always said that they fully recognise that local authorities will require adequate resources to discharge their new responsibilities. Resource requirements stemming from legislation and new burdens placed upon authorities will be taken into account in determining the level of central government financial support to be given. While no definite estimates are available at this stage, hundreds of millions of pounds have been referred to. The amount that the Government would otherw ise be providing to finance care through social security payments for people in residential and nursing, homes, for example, will be transferred to local authorities on a pound for pound basis in the grant and personal social services standard spending assessments. The sum involved and the total
10
resources for community care will be finally determined in the 1990 public expenditure survey.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that people in this country have been grossly misled by the Government over the poll tax? Did not the Government tell the country that it would be the responsibility of local authorities to set charges in their areas for the level of services which they thought was correct, and that it was then up to the local electorate to discipline or otherwise their local authority? How can that happen if local authorities, having made their plans and drawn up their budgets, are now told by the Government that they cannot carry those budgets through?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, local accountability is central to the community charge system. However, it will of course take some time for accountability pressures to be fully effective. Regrettably a number of authorities have chosen to budget excessively for 1990-91, hence the need for my right honourable friend to use the powers given to him by Parliament to protect charge payers from the consequences of excessive spending.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, when the Government's words are put into practice it will become singularly obvious that the community care provisions will be inadequate. The blind, crippled and mentally ill will suffer. Will the Government reconsider their position so that ordinary folk do not suffer?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is no indication of the kind of consequences that the noble Lord has suggested. However, the public expenditure survey is reviewed every year.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely surprised by the answer that the Minister has just given. Does she agree with the calculation that has been made that charge capping will result in a reduction of £29 million in the social services expenditure of charge-capped authorities? That sum is equivalent to the cost of 3,500 home helps and 11,500 places for the elderly in residential homes.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord may not be totally aware that the costing of the community care provisions that we hope will be implemented as a result of the Bill which is currently before Parliament will not be taken into account in this year's local authority spending but will come up in next year's public expenditure survey. The amount that has been provided for this year is just for the preparatory work that is required.

Business
Viscount Long: My Lords, after the short debate on the problems affecting the tenant farmer and before the short debate on the forestry industry in the United Kingdom, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Export Controls: Iraq.

11
I should like to say a word about this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Radnor. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and as the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of both short debates this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

The Tenant Farmer
3.6 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley rose to call attention to the problems affecting the tenant farmer; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must say that I am not particularly happy to move the Motion because, although the subject is certainly not party political, it can cause the odd difference of opinion within the agricultural industry. I am therefore grateful and relieved to know that it is my noble friend Lady Trumpington who will sum up the views of your Lordships.
This is a specialised subject. Reading through the list of noble Lords who are speaking today, I am more than conscious of the fact that every single one has great specialist knowledge. Like me, each speaker will have to declare an interest. I start by declaring my interest in that I was a tenant farmer of New College Oxford for some 30 years. I am still a partner with my son in that farm, but I am now an owner occupier. Therefore my farming experience and my problems, satisfaction and occasional pleasure gained from farming have been those of a working farmer. No doubt noble Lords will accuse me of being tenant friendly. However, to balance the books I should say that I spent all my Christmas holidays as a child in one of England's most beautiful houses to which was attached many thousands of acres of tenanted land.
What are the problems facing today's farming tenant? They are, of course, the same as those that face the whole of British agriculture. British agriculture is in a desperate financial crisis. The particular difficulty that faces the tenant is that because he has to make a living out of farming and because he has to pay a rent his problems are greater than those of most other people. In my case my rent in 1988 represented the single most expensive charge to my account, whereas in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s it did not.
I mention that because any alteration in future tenancy legislation must ensure that the tenant is no worse off financially and that his slice of the cake is not diminished. The trouble is that today the cake is non-existent for either landlord or tenant. That really is the nub of the problem. The only possible cake lies in any development value of the land which goes of course to the landlord, often to the severe detriment of the tenant. I wonder how many
12
landowners with farms in hand could earn enough money to support a family if they had to pay present day rents. Most fail to make money when they pay no rent and put in their own money, charging only a nominal interest for that money. That is not an option, however, for the working farmer tenant.
This is not the time to spell out the reasons for the crisis—and I use the word advisedly—in British agriculture. I know that your Lordships appreciate the problem. However, until the farming industry, the public, the clearing banks and the Government truly accept the position we shall make no progress whasoever towards solving the problem. The ironic fact is that it has in part been caused by the British farmer's efficiency, much admired by all until a few years ago.
Certainly the problem will not be solved by encouraging the tenant to be less efficient. Such a recipe, apart from destroying what is left of the farmer's self-repect and pride in his job, would encourage foreign imports to the detriment of our balance of payments, and the price of food to the housewife would increase. Moreover, in today's economic climate it is impossible for any tenant to devote money to improving the environment. I have yet to find any alternative diversification scheme which is economically viable for a tenant paying today's rents and interest charges.
That in a nutshell is the position of today's tenant. If noble Lords feel that I am landlord-bashing, that is not the case. I realise that even with the present uneconomically high rents landlords do not make enough to service their farms as most would wish.
Having dealt briefly with how the economic problems affect today's tenanted sector I move on to ask what is the future—and perhaps whether there is a future—of the landlord-tenant system. The system has been responsible for the youthful enterprise and vigour that were so admired and has given an example to this nation of what constitutes a day's work, albeit for only a quarter of a day's pay. The trouble is that the system is dying on its feet for a number of reasons, some of which I have already mentioned, and because of the reluctance of landlords to let through the fear that they cannot repossess the land should they need to do so.
I therefore believe that if we are to revitalise the landlord-tenant system we should look again at the legislation to see whether it can be improved. I am pleased to note that my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State did not rule out possible legislation when he referred to the matter on 16th February this year in another place. I hope that your Lordships will come forward this afternoon with some compromise options. It will not be possible to spell those out in detail but I hope that all noble Lords will agree that those on all sides of the argument should be flexible in their approach and prepared to discuss all the options.
I start by suggesting that all future tenancies —and any legislation should not be retrospective —should include a retirement clause. That would make tenants think about making provision for their retirement, which sadly the majority do not. I used to think that the retirement age should be 65. Now

13
that I am 63 and have just finished lambing 1,300 ewes I think that it should probably be 60. But that is a matter of detail. I hope that my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton will refer to that point because he brought the subject before your Lordships in 1983–84.
Secondly, I believe that the industry should try to solve the problem of the type of fixed-term tenancy. As your Lordships know, I have always been bitterly opposed to fixed-term tenancies for a number of reasons, the most important of which are fear of eviction and the long-term process of agriculture. Perhaps I should call it the nature of agriculture, although nowadays farmers are not allowed to believe that they know anything about nature.
It is for those reasons, and others, that I cannot accept complete freedom of contract. I know that it is the CLA's first option. Complete freedom of contract might bring more land on to the market. However, the quality of the agreement, and more important the quality of life of the tenant and his life after eviction, would be totally unacceptable in today's more caring society. Moreover,] know that total Freedom of contract is not acceptable to the other parties in the matter. I believe that it should not be the step that your Lordships recommend today It would sink the boat and any further discussion on the future of the landlord-tenant system.
Of all the suggestions put forward for a type of fixed-term tenancy I believe that the one called an extended agricultural tenancy has the most merit and deserves thought, albeit with modification. In brief, it would allow the landlord and tenant to negot ate a tenancy of 10 years with a renewal clause allowi ng extension of the tenancy for further periods. At the end of that period the landlord would be able to regain possession if he could satisfy certain limited grounds. Those limited grounds would have to be consi(iered carefully.
I hope that the CLA, the NFU and the Tenant Farmers' Association will discuss that scheme. I believe that all parties should appreciate that, if a short-term fixed tenancy is to be created, the rent must be fixed so that the tenant is able to borrow money and save enough for the day when he vacates the holding. A longer period than the statutory 12 months should be allowed for the tenant and landlord to make other arrangements.
The first two points apply to lifetime tenancies. However, as those tenants apply for a longer period there is a better chance, God willing, to ride temporary downturns in farming profitability. I accept that short-term tenancies will probably create exploitation of the land and short-term lets may well go to established farmers or established tenants. However, surely that is better than having no let at all.
I believe that traditional landlords, such as the Oxbridge colleges and many of your Lordships, would prefer a lifetime retirement tenancy. The land would be better farmed and looked after and the relationship between landlord and tenant would be a very much happier one—as it certainly was in my case. There is no doubt in my mind that lifetime
14
retirement tenancies are the ideal. Any alteration in legislation to allow shorter-term lets should favour and encourage those longer tenancies.
I should have liked Sub-Committee D to study the problem but unfortunately it is outside its terms of reference. However, I hope very much that all your Lordships will agree that the matter must continue to be discussed. Any discussion on the landlord-tenant sector should take account of two points: first, that the present financial position of the tenant is precarious to say the least, and, secondly, that any new arrangement for short-term tenancies should be the exception rather than the norm and that the rent formula should favour lifetime retirement tenancies.
I hope that your Lordships and my noble friend Lady Trumpington will agree with that line of thought, or at least some of it. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to offer the services of her Ministry to encourage a solution. I do not think it responsible to sweep under the carpet the financial problems of the existing tenant or the future of the landlord-tenant system, for I am convinced that the pendulum will swing again and the country will one day again be short of food. Many of us can remember those days. The country will need the expertise, the hard work and the effectiveness of the landlord-tenant system, which has served this country so well. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
LordJohn-Mackie: My Lords, I am much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for raising this subject, which, as he emphasised in his last few sentences, is very important. There was no collusion between us over the debate, but the noble Lord has said just about everything that I intended to say. I shall try to say it as differently as I can, but that will be a little difficult.
First and foremost, like the noble lord, I must declare an interest. I am a tenant farmer with a three-generation lease. My young,er son, who manages the farm, is already agreed in principle as my successor and he has two sons to follow him, if necessary. I agree with the noble Lord's point about rent and with his point that, on a rented farm today, one must try to diversify into something that will raise money to pay the rent. My son and I have raised sufficient money to set up a riding centre and stables, which are doing quite well, but it took a great deal of capital to begin with. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, it is not as easy for a tenant farmer to raise money as it is for an owner-occupier.
My family has a long history of tenant farmers on both sides. Both my mother's and my father's people were tenants of the Haddo House estate of the Aberdeens in north-east Scotland. The farm in which I was born is how a fourth-generation tenancy without any legal requirement to put in an heir. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, mentioned the rapport in the old tenancies between the landlord and the tenant. In 1923 or 1924 the Government introduced rural housing subsidies. My father built four houses on that farm. When he had finished he went to Lord Haddo, who was then the landlord, and said, "Look, we need to do something about who owns these houses. You've paid about a third, I have paid about

15
a third and His Majesty has paid about a third". Lord Haddo immediately replied, "We'll cut out His Majesty straightaway". That was a nice gesture from the landlord.
The situation today is different because, in my opinion, landlords do not have the same rapport. They do not take an interest. The interest is through agents. There is no local factor. That makes quite a difference to the rapport between the farmer and his landlord.
When considering tenancies, one must remember that in almost every case the farm is the farmer's home. That is most important. At present my home is a nice house on the farm in Essex and I do not want to leave it, save feet first. Many farmers would feel strongly if they had to leave and look for another house. I recently chided the Tenant Farmers Association on that point and suggested that it wanted to push farmers out into council houses, but it strongly denied that that was the idea.
Because of that aspect, I very much favour life tenancy. There is no doubt that a farm is better looked after under a life tenancy. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, I can imagine nothing worse than short-term tenancies. I believe that there is a suggestion of five-, 10- or 15- year tenancies. Let us take the case of a young man with, for example, a 10-year tenancy and no guarantee of continuing thereafter. He will use up the fertility of the farm and suck the land dry. That is the natural thing to do. He will not build up the land in the course of a short-term tenancy. The maintenance will be the minimum necessary to satisfy a full repairing lease. Any development to improve buildings or fixed equipment will be absolutely nil over a period of five, 10 or 15 years. I cannot emphasise that point too strongly.
The same would apply to retirement tenancies. Landlords may be tempted as well as anyone else. It will be difficult to resist the temptation to give the tenancy to as old a farmer as can be found so as to obtain a short-term tenancy by that method. If landlords are in the business of letting farms, surely it is an advantage to have a long-term tenancy with the usual proviso of rent reviews.
We all want to see the tenant farmer system continue, but, when one looks at the graph of its decline, one sees that it is practically a straight line from about 1910 to the present day. There has been a gradual falling away of tenant farmers. There are virtually no points at which one can say that the fall has been the result of legislation. I believe that figures show that, a good few years after the 1976 legislation, fewer than 30 per cent. of farms covered under the legislation were carried on by a son or relative. The fuss about it was therefore not warranted.
The main reasons for that fall have been the breaking up of estates after the two wars and the temptation in the last 15 to 20 years for landlords to sell farms when they became vacant because of the ridiculously high price that land has reached. One cannot blame them. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, mentioned the price of land 10 or 15 years ago and the price today. Any farm that comes on to
16
the market is almost bound to be sold. I cannot see the problem being solved until the price of land and the rental value become more comparable and reach a stage at which institutions such as the Church, the Crown and even private individuals will invest in land and obtain a reasonable return.
I see that my time is just about up; as a matter of fact, it is up. I could expand on the issue, but I shall leave it at that for noble Lords to consider.
3.28 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, as a landlord with several let farms, I have been dismayed to observe the gradual decline over the years in the availability of this excellent system of tenure. As British agriculture faces the increased competition of the single European market and of the slide towards world prices and the various directives from the Commission, it is a shame that the industry cannot agree on a formula to arrest that decline and so share on broader shoulders the responsibility of returning to a vigorous and prosperous agriculture.
It is the usual situation of two extremes with the need being to agree at a middle point. Generally speaking, landlords favour complete freedom of contract and tenants fear eviction as a result of that. Is there not a meeting point between those two opposing views? I believe that everybody involved in the system, certainly the Tenant Farmers Association, wants to encourage the system to continue and to rejuvenate. It has great merits. Primarily it gives farming opportunities to the younger generation and those who do not have the resources to buy a farm. The landlord provides the farmland and buildings and the tenant provides the working capital and stock. As we have heard, through many generations tenants pass on the farms to their sons, and that is an important asset to an agricultural estate.
The first and most important point to be made is that there should be no retrospective legislation so that existing tenants will be unaffected. Any new tenancy entered into would therefore be one in which both sides were fully aware of the position as regards length of security as well as the other usual terms.
There appears to be a demand for tenancies but landlords are often unwilling to relet because of the lifetime commitment that is now demanded. In view of the extreme swings of the pendulum found at general elections in the United Kingdom, it is a brave person who will make a financial commitment for 30 or 40 years into the future. It must be possible to find a halfway house.
One or two suggestions have been made: a fixed term tenancy or retirement tenancy and, at the other extreme, freedom of contract. With regard to the first, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, outlined a system which seems worthy of close consideration. Retirement tenancies—in effect, also fixed term—seem to be of fairly limited use when dealing with a hopeful young tenant in his twenties, for the reason that I have already outlined; namely the commitement of 30 or 40 years until his retirement. Nevertheless if that could be agreed it would be a useful step forward.

17
The option of freedom of contract is, I am afraid, opposed by the NFU, the TFA and the CAAV because the very short tenancies that might result could lead to evictions. Perhaps one could impose a minimum term, say 10 or 15 years. One would thus have a mixture of all three options. I can see that being very useful to a man of 50 who wants his son to continue in business at the original farm when he himself wishes to continue farming and earning until his retirement 15 years hence. So long as the term was understood and planned for at the beginning and when it came to dealing with tenants' improvements, I can see very few difficulties arising, if I rr ay slightly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie.
If the Government can see the benefits of the landlord and tenant system, they ought to legislate. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister will tell the House whether the Government have such plans. It would help our tried and trusted system to rejuvenate and the industry would have a stronger arm to battle with in European agriculture.
However, existing tenant farmers often have more pressing worries which normally include finance. The tenant farmer does not have access to the capital value of the farming land and is less able to borrow for expansion or diversification or to restructure by a strategic capital sale or development. Many people would argue that not having access to today's interest rates is a positive advantage. On the other hand, where the landlord obtains development permission for non-agricultural use, the compensation formula, which was fixed in 1968, does not always recognise the true economic loss that the business suffers. I hope that most landlord and tenant relationships are good enough to overcome the hurdle, but that is not always the case, especially where the land has been bought with development specifically in mind.
Many farmers are trying to diversify. According to the way in which the agreement is drawn up the tenant may require his landlord's consent, for instance, to plant trees under the set aside scheme. Some operations merely require the tenant to inform his landlord of his intentions. Many tenants would ask for a greater measure of freedom in business. It must be in the landlord's interest for the tenant's enterprise to thrive. However, I believe it important that any change that will affect the landlord's long-term interest and the letting value of the holding should require his consent. That must include work where trees are planted and perhaps golf courses or any concrete structures—work that is mostly permanent.
Tenants are a vital and hardworking sector of our agricultural industry. It is important that their problems are recognised as much for our rural society as for our food producing industry and, not least, for the landlords, who do not wish to be out at 5 a.m. milking cows on their own land.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for enabling us tc discuss this important matter. He challenged us, or suggested that we should declare an interest. Sadly, I now have no interest to declare having
18
retired from farming. But in my time I have been a tenant farmer, a landlord and an owner-occupier. I straddle the three different methods of farming.
Like the noble Duke, I am a strong believer in the landlord-tenant system. I view with grave disquiet and unhappiness the decline that has taken place over the years in the number of tenancies and in the growth of owner occupancy. I believe that there are two absolutely different functions in farming. One is the ownership of land, which requires various skills, experience and capital; the other is the farming of land. Occasionally they are well mixed but it is rare to find somebody who is capable of doing both adequately and well. Therefore, we must attempt to revive our landlord-tenant system.
I am sorry to say that I do not now believe that the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, are workable. First, there was the short-term tenancy and the tenancy until retirement, whether at 60 or 65. I should be inclined to say that 80 is a better age at which to retire. But whatever the age may be it does not lead to the best type of farming. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember the old farming saying that while you live as if you die tomorrow, you farm as if you live for ever. If one knows that there is a term to the tenancy within another few years, one cannot farm as well as when one knows that one is there for life and with luck one's heirs may be able to continue. Therefore, to my mind the old-fashioned form of landlord-tenant relationship is the best. For various reasons—and there is no time to go into them—that is rapidly disappearing. How can we reverse the trend?
I should like to make one suggestion. It is based on the very happy experience that I had for a good many years as a commissioner of Crown estates. There the landlord-tenant system worked, and works, at its best. The landlord does his job; the tenant does his job. The tenant knows that he can go on indefinitely so long as he is capable of farming well and that there is a very good chance that the landlord will allow his son, if he is properly qualified and does the job well, to carry on after him. It is not a question of waiting for the tenant to die, rubbing one's hands and saying, "That is good. I can now dispose of my farm and sell it with vacant possession at an inflated price." One cannot blame people for doing that; the private landlord may be, and often is, tempted to do so. The Crown estates and other such organisations are not so tempted. The Crown estates are debarred by statute from investing in anything other than small-weight government securities and land—albeit urban as well as agricultural land.
I put to your Lordships the idea that it might be worth the Government considering—I put it no more strongly than that —setting up a body that one could call the national trust for estates or the national estates trust. It would not deal with historic houses and such matters, handled so well now by the National Trust; it would concentrate on our agricultural estates. It could be debarred from investing money in anything other than agricultural land but would be entitled to buy land at the going rate perhaps with powers of pre-emption when an estate came on the market. I refer more particularly

19
to estates rather than individual farmers although they would not be ruled out. By degrees thereby, over the decades, the amount of land available for tenancy would be increased, as would the number of tenant farms.
A system of really good estate management would evolve such as is practised today on the best estates in the country—and there are still some of them—but without the nagging temptation to take the attitude, "When I die, or when this farm becomes vacant, it is my duty to sell it and gain the profit that I can from it;" or to look upon the capital as being needed for other purposes such as education of children, or whatever it may be, and that it would therefore be bad business not to cash in.
If one takes away that temptation, as one would by a form of national trust for our agricultural estates, over the years there would be an increase in the amount of land available for tenant farming. There would be increased opportunities for the young; new entrants into the industry as tenant farmers. Today it is virtually impossible for that to happen. We would slowly revert to the heyday of the landlord/tenant system but without the drawbacks which one has to admit it has in certain cases with the arbitrary decisions that the landlord could take to the detriment of his tenants.
My suggestion therefore is this. If one were able to achieve agreement between the National Farmers Union, the CLA, the tenant farmers, and so on, to some form of alteration of the present landlord/tenant system, we should be fooling ourselves if we thought that that was going to make any significant difference. If we are sincere, as I believe we all are, in saying that we want a viable form of modern-type 18th and 19th century landlord/tenant system —by creating a large national estate (call it, if you wish, nationalisation by the back door, but it would be in a purely voluntary form with no compulsory purchase) over the decades we should return to the advantages which in the old days placed British agriculture at the top of the league for agricultural advance throughout the world.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, for introducing the debate. I make only a very short intervention.
As noble Lords know, I am a farmer and have in the past had a single tenant. I now farm all the land because the tenant has given up. The subject has been a difficult one for many years. Up to now tenant farmers have had complete authority when renting a farm and landlords have been unable to change this unless the tenants wish to leave and give notice.
In the past when some landlords had a great many farms to lease, the system worked quite satisfactorily, and can still do so. However, recently the conditions of farming all over the world, and in this country in particular, have changed and are still changing. Many landlords do not wish to let land indefinitely. I am one who has had a small experience of this: on
20
my estate one farm was let for two generations to the same family and although I wanted the farm for a nephew I could not get it back until one day, without any notice, I had a letter from the tenant saying that he wanted to give up and move elsewhere. That was a great relief and I got the farm back. It is being farmed by my nephew today. The tenancy had lasted for over 80 years. I do not think that that is a good way of organising farms today. We talk of freedom of choice in many industries. I should have thought it possible to allow tenant and landlord to make an agreement mutually satisfactory to both sides and including if needed, options to give up or to continue. Let us suppose that some event alters the situation: the tenant dies or does not wish to continue. It should be possible to make a clause in the tenant's contract to allow the landlord to take over the farm again, either for himself if he so desires or to relet. That would have to be part of the original tenancy agreement. Under the 1947 Act I do not think that that is possible at present.
I believe, as we all do, in the system of landlord and tenant. It is one of the ways of encouraging new entrants into the agricultural industry. I know of several cases where the tenant has been so successful that in the event the landlord has sold the farm to him, again by agreement, and the tenant is now a successful farmer.
My hope is that if alterations can be made they will be by agreement on both sides and will result in improvements for both sides and will help our great industry of agriculture. Today it is even more important than it ever has been. Certainly in the light of the European situation we are just about the best farmers in Europe. I therefore hope that we shall be able to achieve some arrangement which will be satisfactory to both sides.
3.48 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I also should like to thank my noble friend Lord Stanley for introducing this important and topical debate.
If I described a well farmed, attractive, environmentally-friendly countryside with a more than reasonable return for the farmers who produced it and, in the case of tenanted farms, perhaps some small reward for the landlord, noble Lords might say that I had a pie-in-the-sky idea of what the country was like. However, perhaps I may use a phrase much loved by the noble Lord, Lord MoUoy: that is what the great British public would like. It would appeal to the Greens and to the great bulk of people who go into the countryside. I hope that that is what we can achieve again.
I am sure that the landlord and tenant system has much part to play in producing a countryside such as I have described. It could, and indeed should, provide that. We only have to look in this day and age at some of the country's great estates to see what well farmed and attractive landscapes they provide. I believe that they should have the opportunity to do so again in the future.
This debate relates to the difficulties facing tenant farmers. In my opinion, the main difficulty relates much more to the state of British agriculture at the moment than to the future of the landlord/tenant

21
system. My noble friend Lord Stanley referred to that point at the beginning of his speech and I echo everything he said. When one looks at falling incomes, increased costs, high bank interest rates and an unfavourable valuation of the British green pound, the difficulty is obvious. I become annoyed when I hear people say on television that they will strike because they have been offered a rise of less than the current rate of inflation. In practical terms farmers are worse off than they were five or six years ago and incomes have been lowered. That is a far greater problem than the landlord and tenant system.
I declare an interest, as have other speakers. I am lucky enough to be a tenant for life of a lovely estate in Yorkshire. It stretches from good arable land on the banks of the River Ure to moorland at 2,000 feet and everything in between. It is a microcosm of farrr ing. During the past few years a number of my tenants have found themselves in economic difficulties. It is interesting to note that it is not the high side farmers on the poorer land who are in trouble but those down on the better arable land. They borrowed money when interest rates were high and invested in machinery but found the falling price of grain going against them. I do not say that the hill farmers are having an easy life. However, they tighten their belts and tend not to have to pay anyone else because theirs is a family business. They do not spend much money and they survive. They do not find themselves with their backs to the wall. Even these people, however, now find it almost impossible to make a living of any kind—or at least not what Members of your Lordships' House would describe as a living. It would be easy for me to tighten my belt considerably more but it is not easy for them.
I speak from the heart in saying that, although in this country we are used to the image of the feather-bedded farmer crying wolf, that is not the case at present. A few days ago I spoke to one of my senior tenants. He is a much respected man whose farrr. has been in his family for many generations. He has many cousins and relations farming in the area. He told me that both his sons, now in their mid–20s, are studying at evening class; one is taking accountancy and the other electrical engineering. I replied that that was useful because both subjects can be of help on a farm. He said, "No, they aren't doing it for that reason but because by the time they come to take over the farm there won't be a farm left". By comparison the problem of the landlord and tenant system is fairly insignificant, although the situation is not good at present.
I was impressed by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, about landlords being bad farmers. I know that I am one, as are a number of my friends. Following the latest legislation they took back the land and tried to farm it, but they caught a considerable cold as a result. My policy has been to relet the land. I am amazed to see people prepared to enter into a tenancy in the present climate. I wish them luck but I should not like to be in their shoes. It is important that we should establish a better relationship and that landlords should not take back land and try to farm it. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, some are successful, but in my opinion they are the minority.
22
I was cheered to hear the words of my noble friend Lord Stanley at the beginning of the debate. Again I declare an interest because, like other Members of this House, I am a member of the CLA and NFU. I was slightly dispirited to read their briefings for the debate. The CLA stated that it wanted only the freedom of contract as regards tenancy but the NFU said, "That will be over our dead bodies". My noble friend Lord Stanley has given us hope that a way forward can be found.
I cannot see an easy solution to the problems of agriculture in general in this country. I do not have the time nor should I like to try to give the answer. However, I wish to draw to the attention of my noble friend on the Front Bench an imaginative proposal from the Countryside Commission. It is for a single scheme of farm support to promote—and again I must use the awful expression—environmentally friendly farming. There is a future in that and if my noble friend has time to look at the proposal she will not be wasting her time.
I hope that the NFU and the CLA can talk together with the Government. I further hope that in future we shall again see in this great country of ours the kind of countryside that I described at the beginning of my speech.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I join other speakers in congratulating my noble friend Lord Stanley on bringing the matter to the attention of your Lordships. The chief problem facing tenant farmers is that there is little land available for rent. As the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, reminded us, the tenanted sector is becoming smaller. In 1908 the proportion of tenanted land by area was 88 per cent. but it is now only 36 per cent. Therefore, during the past 40 years efforts have been made to support the landlord and tenant system. However, it is my view that the efforts have been unsuccessful because successive governments believed that that support could be given by legislative control.
By 1950 the proportion of tenanted land had dwindled to 62 per cent. By 1976 it was down to 44 per cent. The then Labour Government attempted to arrest the decline by giving increased security of tenure. The 1948 Act had given the farmer the right to a life tenancy. The 1976 Act provided for three life tenancies in succession. What was predicted by those of us who participated in the passing of that legislation in fact occurred. Landowners, faced with losing control over their land for up to three generations—and that could be a century—were unwilling to create any new tenancies. Sitting tenants and their descendants remained happily in possession but opportunities for new entrants completely dried up.
At that time one of my friends promulgated a law; that the effect of most legislation is directly opposite to the intentions of those who promote it. Of course, that was said tongue in cheek but it was true of the 1976 Act which received enthusiastic support from the National Farmers' Union. By the late 1970s it was obvious to everyone, including the NFU, that far from stabilising the landlord and tenant system the opposite had happened. The then Minister of

23
Agriculture, Mr. John Silkin, set up a committee of inquiry under the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. It examined the landlord and tenant system and took a good look at the institutions which were buying up the land only to move out when the going got rough. Its report was favourable to both but it coincided with the change of government in 1979.
Meanwhile, my party had agreed that new legislation was required to pull the landlord and tenant system out of what appeared to be a terminal decline. However, it insisted that any new Agricultural Holdings Bill could be based only on a consensus within the industry. I had grave misgivings because I believed that it was most unlikely that any effective measures would emerge from what I considered to be an abrogation of government. There was bound to be a divergence of views making it difficult to find a formula which would reconcile the interests of the two parties.
I was heavily involved in the negotiations leading to an agreed compromise in the terms of what was to become a new Agricultural Holdings Bill finally enacted in 1984. I backed the Bill strongly because, for all its faults, it was better than nothing. More importantly, there was a faint chance that something better would emerge once it became obvious that it would not produce many more farms for rent.
It is for "something better" that my noble friend Lord Stanley is groping. He is right to do so and he is right to be worried. However, I fear that his prescription may not be effective. The mistakes of 1976 and 1984 seem not to have been taken on board. My noble friend Lord Stanley seeks yet again for some kind of consensus. That is a very attractive concept but I have worries.
Mr. Richard Ryder, who was then at the Ministry of Agriculture, speaking in another place on 24th April last year said:
"If the tenanted sector is to be revitalised, we must find ways of making the letting of land more attractive to landowners".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/89; col. 781.]
He went on to say that there must be clear prospect of the legislation being of worthwhile practical effect and that there must be some sign of agreement in the industry. I am not quite sure what that means. If it means another attempt to achieve unanimity, we went down that road in 1984.
Of course, no one wants legislation which is unacceptable either to owners or tenants but if any government really want to revive the system, they must be prepared to take a firm line. As someone said recently, half-way house legislation is a waste of time.
How should the problem be tackled? I see from the brief which I have from the CLA—and my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Stanley have referred to this—that it is asking for complete freedom of contract between landlord and tenant for any new tenancies. The parties to a new tenancy agreement could agree any terms they wished, presumably including the various options put forward by my noble friend Lord Stanley.
24
That makes very good sense to me and I agree with the present CLA president when he said at a recent conference:
"There are those who will be alarmed by a call for such freedom to negotiate".
He went on to say:
"I do wonder why. Landlords asking unreasonable conditions will get no tenants; unreasonable tenants will get no farms."
The crucial question is whether it will satisfy Mr. Ryder's criterion of effectiveness.
The results of a survey carried out by the CLA are interesting. The introduction of retirement tenancies, advocated by my noble friend, would result in 27 per cent. of land that would not otherwise be let by landlords being relet. Therefore, there is something to be said for that idea. More significantly, it was found that given freedom of contract landlords would be likely to relet 59 per cent. of land which would otherwise not be let. It has been calculated that over five years that would result in a 10 per cent. increase of land in the tenanted sector. I believe that that would be worth going for.
When my noble friend kindly wrote to me about this debate he told me that total freedom of contract would be rejected outright by the National Farmers' Union and the Tenant Farmers' Association and he said that again this afternoon. I hope that I am wrong in fearing that once again the farmers' representatives may be preparing to shoot themselves in the foot. They may do well to compare the landlord-tenant system in West Germany and Belgium where landlords have the confidence to let with that in Holland where restrictive legislation similar to ours is in force. In Germany and Belgium, the system is thriving. In Holland, it is virtually extinct.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley for initiating this debate because it is opportune. The number of agricultural holdings has been declining steadily for many years. I venture to suggest that the main reason for that is purely economic although there are many contributing factors.
Although the number of holdings has decreased, the size of holdings has increased. Again that is purely economic because larger holdings tend to be more viable. It makes sense economically but it is unfortunate because as holding sizes increase, it follows that fewer and fewer are available to rent.
As my noble friend Lord Middleton said, legislation over the past 40 years, especially the 1984 Act, has given tenants security of tenure. Indeed, it has given tenants' relatives a statutory right to apply to accede to the tenancy on the death ! of the sitting tenant. As my noble friend says, it is a possible contributory cause to the decline in the number of farms available for rent. I would not wish to see that changed. I believe that it is fair that if a son has worked all his life on his father's farm he should not lose his livelihood in the event of the death of his father.

25
Nevertheless, in certain circumstances I feel that there is a case for short-term tenancies. For example, if an owner-occupier for some unfortunate reason becomes incapacitated, he may have a son at school or college and it could be expedient to let the farm to a neighbouring farmer until the son was old enough to take over. That would be a good thing. However, as matters stand the farmer must be very careful because there is a grave danger of a full tenancy being created. Therefore, in certain circumstances and only in those circumstances short-term tenancies could be reasonable and sensible.
On the question of tenants' compensation for dispossession, I can well understand a landlord's frustration when he wishes to embark on some lucrative development project on his own land and then is fought tooth and nail by the tenant who is obviously fighting for his very livelihood. The present compensation terms are completely inadequate. If they were more generous, surely agreement would be reached more easily.
I believe that a set of guidelines on this question would be a good thing. I know that it would be very difficult given the vastly differing complexities of each individual case, but set guidelines could be a base on which negotiations could then proceed.
As we have already heard, the landlord-tenant system has served the industry, and indeed the nation, well for generations. It has been a means of giving young people with limited financial means the opportunity to enter farming. I must admit to being somewhat apprehensive as to its long-term continuation in the present manner. As we all know and have heard, there is a continuing decline in the availability of land to let, for whatever reason, which may have to be arrested by some change in the present law. However, I hope that all the problems—whether as regards compensation, the tenant diversifying into other spheres or even tenure—can be resolved by discussion and agreement among all the parties—the CLA, the Tenant Farmers' Association and everybody else. If consensus could be reached it would be better than government legislation. We must somehow keep open the opportunities for young farmers to farm as they wish.
4.9 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I too am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships. On his suggestion, I declare an interest in that I am tenant, landlord, manager and partner, if that has any relevance, in parts of Wiltshire. I also follow my noble friend in saying that the troubles of the tenant farmer are to a very large extent shared by any farmer these days.
It is an extraordinarily difficult time for farming. Incomes are dropping; a stabilising position has been established whereby overproduction in the country as a whole is penalised in the income of the individual. There is no doubt that every farmer, be he tenant or owner-occupier, must look to his laurels quite carefully and concentrate upon the usual business remedies—if they are applicable to
26
farming—beyond the stage of looking to his costs, marketing and output.
There has been thrown out somewhere in this debate, I suspect at the beginning, the suggestion that landlords charge, shall we say, a rather large rent. I use that description rather than the word "exhorbitant". But that suggestion must not be allowed to pass without comment. Legislation is quite clear on the point. Rents are reviewed every third year. My impression, both personal and from looking around me in the countryside, is that at present rents have reached a plateau; they are not increasing and on occasions are decreasing. I think that that is a fair and reasonable description.
There is no doubt that some farmers are finding difficulty and within the three-year period are applying to discuss the rent further. On that point I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. In my experience it is the good farmer on the better land who is having difficulty. He has been a leader in the past when times were good and has borrowed too much from the bank. The banks must bear a certain measure of guilt for the situation. But it tends to be the better farmer who always believed that the boom times would continue for ever who is having difficulties.
I sense that that is not what this debate is concerned with. It is concerned with the fact that fewer young people are coming into farming and using that bottom rung of the ladder—perhaps a smallish farm on an estate —to get a start. The reason for that goes back to the very high price of land and the fact that there is tremendous security for tenants. We already have a ridiculous situation in the United Kingdom where some tenants have security for three generations and others for the whole of their life. As far as I can see such situations are just not reflected in the rent at all. But that is by the way.
It is assumed that the tenanted sector is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, pointed out that there has been a gradual depression of lettings from 1910 up to the present. It has in no way been evident to me that efficiency in farming has gone down in the same way, and I see no reason why an owner-occupier should not be at least as good a farmer as a tenant. However, I admit that it would be a very good thing to have a few more people entering the industry.
A number of alternatives have been put forward to accomplish that. I shall take the short-term tenancy and freedom of contract suggestions first. Matters move slowly in the country. Seasons come round slowly. Rotations, if anybody uses them these days, are long—the Norfolk fourcourse is one of the shortest in Wiltshire. We had one of seven or eight years. Therefore it is quite wrong to think of bargaining over a period such as 10 years.
What has not been mentioned in the debate so far are the complications of dilapidations, the house in which you live and other such matters. Everyone knows of the difficulties at the end of a tenancy and how they can strain relationships. Tenants in the old days used to bid high for their farms because of key money, and unwise young men will now be bidding high and coming unstuck in a very short period. In

27
my mind, therefore, I dispose of both those alternatives.
The 65-year retirement proposition will simply be a temptation to employ people aged around 60 and will not help the situation. It is all that has been suggested so far. Nobody suggested partnerships, which I shall not have time to go into but which I think offer an alternative.
Before I sit down, I think it was Lord Melbourne who said when in doubt do nothing, and if you have to do something, do as little as possible. That is my suggestion on this subject.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I too should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for initiating this debate. I was also pleased to hear that the Minister had indicated that he intends to look again at the problems of tenancies and how they are progressing. I must endeavour to declare a rather complicated interest. I belong to a land-owning family but I am in fact a tenant within the family with all the professionals continuing to say "He has got to pay an arm's length rent". I therefore understand some of the farming problems—indeed I do—touched upon by my noble friend Lord Stanley.
In 1984 I moved the Tenant Farmers Association amendments on tenancy to retirement age. I make no apology now for having done so because in my view those amendments should have been accepted. I remain convinced that that was the only proposal which would have made the 1984 exercise produce something effective. I agree with my noble friend Lord Middleton regarding the inadvisability of again repeating an exercise of that kind. However, there must be a reasonable degree of consensus because if the tenancy legislation is altered I do not believe we want it to become a political football; that would be a serious tragedy for us.
Before I go on to other matters I should like to say a word regarding retirement tenancies. First, it now seems that they have become the lowest common denominator of consensus opinion, which was not the case in earlier days. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was thoroughly discouraging about them today. In those days, though he saw objections which most people today do not worry about so much, he was more receptive of the idea.
If we have great trouble in reaching a consensus the retirement tenancy proposal remains very much better than nothing. My noble friend Lord Radnor said that sometimes there is a great deal to be said for doing just a little. If matters are like that, I would not decry government efforts to try to bring it about. Although it would not arrest the decline in the let sector it would at least stem the tide a little, and that is always something. We have to remember how much the let sector does in providing opportunities and in helping the finance of farming.
For the landowner, the virtue of retirement tenancies is a greater degree of certainty—agreed on a long term—as to when the tenancy ends. I
28
emphasise that certainty is of very great importance to those who are letting land. Retirement tenancies also enable us to escape from the political problems which lifetime tenancy has produced. I refer particularly to the octogenarian tenant supported by a son who unfortunately experienced difficulties in finding another tenancy when the octogenarian died. That produced a demand for succession and succession proved to be the last straw in the hope for survival of the landlord-tenant system. I venture to suggest that retirement tenancies would to some extent stem the decline.
I agree that if we want more land available quickly for letting it must come from the owner-occupied sector. It cannot come from the landlord-tenant sector unless one interferes with the existing succession tenancies. I believe that nobody wishes to do that. Certainly I do not.
The CLA is right to cast doubt on the owner-occupiers' likely reception of the tenancy-to-retirement-age proposals. They do not think that the proposals go far enough. The owner-occupier sector appears to be looking for something like a maximum 10-year term. Therefore, there is a gap to fill. It is a difficult subject. The CLA is right that to get results, or more land into the letting sector, one must be I bold. However, I doubt whether its proposals for freedom of contract will wash without a minimum term of years at least.
It is interesting that the RICS farm tenure survey shows a high degree of tenant farmer support for freedom of contract; virtually as high as for retirement tenancies. I find that to be surprising. Possibly, it is a straw in the wind. At any rate there must be a minimum term of years. I refer particularly to the efforts of the five land agents—sometimes known as the "famous five" and sometimes the "infamous five". If various people are of such different opinions, they will be somewhere near the mark. I believe that is the only other line of thought.
I have to bring my remarks to a conclusion quickly and I am sorry that I have to rush my speech. The proposals of the five land agents are worth considering if we are to bring more land into the let sector, which might be of great assistance and provide opportunities for farmers in the future.
4.26 p.m.
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest; perhaps more than some people because I was born in 1905 and spent my early life in my father's house which was a parsonage. He was the younger son. My grandfather died after the battle of the Alma and my father never saw him and, therefore, neither did I. I lived in the parsonage and was told that one day I would succeed to a small agricultural estate in Somerset and that that is what I should think about. That is all I have thought about ever since and I am still very confused!
My qualification, if I may put it so, is that for four years I held the job now held by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, but that was a long time ago. It is interesting to realise that agricultural land, or farm land—the problem is mostly economic, which we have not really faced today —did not rise to the dizzy

29
heights of £100 an acre until 1960 when I was sitting in the place now occupied by my noble friend Lady Trumpington. In 1971 the price rose to £300. By 1978 it was £1,000 and by 1983 it had reached £2,000 for purely and solely agricultural land. I do not propose to enter into the realm of statistics as I am not good at arithmetic, but I find those to be staggering figures.
My noble friend Lord Stanley opened the debate—and we thank him for bringing this subject befon; us today—by saying that agriculture is in a crisis. It is in a crisis and during my involvement with agriculture I have seen it go through other crises. In my own small way as a farmer I am just getting out of a crisis. I happen, by one means or another to have a large milk quota and that is probably the only part of farming which is profitable today. How long will the milk quotas last and how long are such advantages to be available for some of us? Real farmers are having a terribly bad time and that i:; the reason why there is such a big decline.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Swinton describe his great estate in the North—as I have heard him do on the Front Bench on previous occasions—and what a family party it was, and how much he liked to see tenants coming on. I have always believed that that is the right way for the old estates to be managed. After all, if you have been born in a farmhouse and your father was a tenant he was on the second level in the old village life, in the old community, which I am afraid can never return. It may continue in some of the more remote districts of the country, but I do not think it can survive very much longer in a district such as that in which I live, which is quite close to the great new conurbation of Bristol —14 miles from Bristol, 14 miles from Bath, five miles from Keynsham, Shepton Mallet and other great places where there are many cottages.
I find it interesting that nobody on the Benches on the far side has asked what all this landlord and tenant business and all this agricultural change means. to the workman. Probably the landlord lost his town property long ago, as did my family. Our little coalmine ran out before I was born so we had to live on the estate, and we depended on our tenants. We did not know how to farm. I was taught how to farm and as a schoolboy was sent to learn to milk a cow instead of going to Switzerland to ski. Nowadays the farmers who own their land send their boys to Switzerland, or the public education authorities send the boys to Switzerland; but I still do not go there.
The real problem is that everybody who has said that the old tenancy system must survive by some means or other—and they said there were various means of doing it—has forgotten that the old system of country life, village life, community life, was completely different 50 or 60 years ago, when the landlord and tenant system was flourishing. The landlord did not want to farm his land. He perhaps had a big castle or at least a big house, and he was on the top level. His younger brother was possibly a parson, and perhaps his nephew would one day succeed to the estate. They were interested in sport and the social life and perhaps in being Members of this House. Not all landlords were Members of this House, but all landlords had money from somewhere
30
else when they built their castles and set up their community estates.
I do not believe that we can return to that. If a landlord learns that land is worth £2,000 an acre he surely feels he must cash in on that and send the proceeds to the City. Although there is need for fewer cottages because of the machinery that has come along, a farmer does have to buy the machinery. He never had to buy the cottages, which were rent and rate free. Some of us are in rather a mess now concerning what to do with our rent-free cottages. It is sensible to sell them to people who are going to work in the neighbouring town. I remember selling a cottage for £40 which had the roof nearly off, but I heard of somebody the other day who sold for £100,000—which was rather more—a tumbledown barn which had planning permission to be turned into a fine house. On cannot blame a landlord for cashing in on such things.
I have not heard in this debate how we can get back to the system where the landlord was the top structure, where the tenant looked after the land, which the landlord did not want to because he wanted to go into politics or go about his business, and there were large numbers of workmen because there was no machinery. My father never owned a motor car, but we did have a dog cart even though we were not in a very rich living—£80 a year.
I have to end on a pessimistic note. I do not see how we can revive the landlord and tenant system unless we go back to the old country system that has surely gone with the passing of time. There is one thing which I think we might consider; that where the man who is farming has to spend his capital on machinery and equipment he should own his land. Where there is rough, difficult or far away land, and the land is worth more than the tenant's capital, then there is a good case for a landlord; but it must be on that basis.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I had not intended to speak but some points have arisen in the debate which I should like to mention, as speakers have been commendably short and well within time.
A good farmer would normally have security. Unless the landlord had good reason for terminating or failing to renew a lease he would feel it better to keep the devil he knew than the devil he did not. Therefore, tenants such as those of my noble friend Lord Swinton would probably go on for many years. Indeed, a number of them must have been there before the current legislation came into being, though I agree that for the good of the land the lease must be for a reasonable length of time.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that the law of tenancy in Scotland is very much worse than it is in England, and if the Government are going to amend the rules I hope they will look urgently at the Scottish legislation because matters are not so satisfactory there. Long-term or even secured tenancies are all right if they are given to a good or even reasonable tenant, but I can think of at least two farms where the tenants have become alcoholics. Then one is in trouble because until such time as

31
the farms are ruined and the farmers have become bankrupt there is no way of getting rid of them. Clearly that is not good for the land or the landlord, and in fact it is not good for the tenant.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I will not congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, on introducing it, but I will congratulate the Government on having the courage to turn him loose on a subject as important as this. For me it has been extremely frustrating because, first of all, my noble kinsman told the story I was going to tell about my father (I cannot say "our father" because that sounds like the Lord's Prayer), and then the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, told the joke against himself, which I had stored up, after he referred to the tightening of belts.
I suppose that I too should declare an interest. My father started his two sons and three daughters not on rented farms but on owner-occupied farms. As the third son I had to become a tenant, which I suppose is quite right, but as I had a very good farm in Strathmore I did not mind a little bit.
I think we have reached a degree of consensus in the debate, with a degree of disagreement as well. The system is worth preserving. I was very interested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave. He said that the old system could not return unless one had the social system with it, but the fact is that we still have nearly 40 per cent. of the land on the landlord-tenant system. That is a large proportion and, as has been said, a valuable proportion, which I think can be increased. It is a good division of responsibility when you think of the landlord owning the land, supplying the capital and getting a modest return on it, and the tenant supplying the working capital, which is now considerable—at least £300 an acre to go into a farm. Even if tenancies are available, farming is an expensive business for a young man to go into. We should recognise that, particularly, as has already been said in the debate, when returns are so small and so insecure. We should recognise in looking at the system that if a tenant is to farm well and do the land some good he needs security. By security I do not mean stagnation, which is what the present system tends to lead to.
I have great admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. While I think he is right to urge the Government to adopt a consensus approach and then to take action, he is quite wrong to say that a freely negotiated contract will do. In every field of commercial life there is legislation to protect people against unfair contracts. In farming, one is dealing with a passion for land. Both the people who buy it for enormous sums—more than £2,000 an acre—and those who rent it do so with a totally non-commercial view of the future. Young men who want to farm will be led into foolish agreements in their great desire to have the land. In Scotland in the past—in the era to which my noble kinsman referred—legislation affected the bargains. The system was made up mostly of 14-year leases—sometimes they were for 19 years and
32
sometimes for 21 years —with a break at seven years. But the terms of compensation were laid down.
I disagree with my noble kinsman on another point. One can legislate a little against bad farming. Fixed-term rotation built up the fertility of Aberdeenshire from the blasted bog it started as and kept the land in good heart. In England in the 1930s the place was full of buttercups and there were meadows all over the place. In Scotland the long lease system and the virtue of the Scots meant that the quality and standard of farming were kept up. If we look at anything we must look at the security of long leases. The retirement provision might be a step forward and would bring more land onto the market. We should look at the long lease system with legislation about the terms of compensation where a tenant dies at or just before the end of his lease. But one cannot have new legislation in this business without laying down terms.
Several new factors have already been touched on. I refer to the high price of land and to the high price of houses. The Government should be looking at those points. It is ludicrous that people should still be paying £2,000 an acre for land. When one bears in mind the high interest charges it becomes even more ludicrous. To make that the equivalent of money in the City, one would need to pay a rent of around £300 an acre. As that is more than the gross income of most farms, it becomes totally uncommercial.
Taking all these factors into consideration, we should be looking at serious discussions about the long lease system with protection and legislation to ensure not only that the tenant is protected but that the landlord is protected against his land being despoiled. It would be a great step forward for a change if the Government would consider this seriously and sensibly and do something to protect the landlord and tenant system which has served this country well, and particularly well in Scotland.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for introducing this important subject and for the dispassionate way in which he did so. This is an important subject, and in our view it needs to be discussed in a wider context than that provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 and related legislation. As we see it, there are three major questions: first, the Government's present economic policies and their effect on farming in particular; secondly, the effect of changes in the common agricultural policy with special regard to tenants; and, thirdly, changes in the pattern of ownership of farm land, especially those which have taken place since the report in 1979 of my noble friend Lord Northfield. These three questions are basic to the problems.
In our view the Government are now reaping the harvest of seeds sown in the 1980s when illusions of economic well-being provided a basis for expansionist policies culminating in the sharp application of brakes from mid-1989 to date. As yet there are no signs of a let-up. The use of a high bank rate to the exclusion of all else is particularly severe on the tenant farmer who rents because he cannot

33
afford to buy and who must, like most farmers, borrow working capital whether for the growing or the breeding seasons. Dear money in the United Kingdom as well as green rates in equities puts British famers at a double disadvantage; that is to say, they have high costs and receive low prices by comparison with their Continental competitors. There has been no response to pleas for easement. Indeed, the joint stock banks are too busy making provision for doubtful debts overseas to listen to farmers at home. We should also say here that the effect of interest rates on rent reviews must be considerable. If I were a landlord I should certainly, when leviewing the rent of a tenant farmer, be taking account of the fact that the overdraft rate is of the order of 18 per cent.
The common agricultural policy is undergoing structural change. This will continue as member states restrain growth in the Community budget. United Kingdom farmers, including tenants, do not qualify as small in the Community's definition of that word. Thus present and future economic Community help is likely to pass our farmers by if the target is the small farmer. The Commission favours early retirement for small fanners to permit opportunity for younger men, diversification and amalgamation of holdings. This has implications for tenants, but so far the Department of Social Security has been unwilling to vary its general rules about the retirement age for state pensions. So little has come of Community proposals in the United Kingdom, which in any case has a derogation from a directive equalising retirement ages by 1993.
The cumulative effect of structural change in the common agricultural policy threatens tenant farmers not least because of some of the complications flowing from it—for example, the attachment of the value of milk quotas to land. Landowners are now seeking alternative uses for land which will give them a better return. Set-aside, for example, is for some a less pleasing environmental prospect than a well maintained golf course. If local authorities will grant planning permission for a golf clubhouse and related development to replace farm buildings, one can see applications for possession by landlords under Case B of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. A Private Member's Bill currently in another place seeks to put right a position arising following a Court of Appeal decision under Case B which allowed a private landlord to recover possession of a farmhouse sub-let by the tenant for residential purposes to persons employed outside agriculture and required by the landlord for his own non-agricultural use. This may not of itself be greatly significant but in a period of change all decisions are important.
The Northfield Report was concerned with changes in patterns of farm land ownership following acquisition by pension funds and other large investors. The report found no detriment to tenants at that time but no government investigation of the position has taken place since then. In our view this Government seem curiously reluctant to instigate any inquiry. But if there is to be a change in the landlord-tenant law in the near future, an up-date of the Northfield Report is an essential preliminary.
34
To be fair, it should be said that Her Majesty's Government appear sympathetic to changes in the law. Reference has already been made to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. David Maclean, in another place on 16th February. He said:
"I also want to make it clear that on this occasion, as opposed to the early 1980s, we shall not let the lack of total consensus stop us. I know that in the early 1980s, before we came forward with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984, my predecessors took the view that unless there was complete unanimity in agriculture and all unions could agree on a proposal, we should not legislate. Now we shall not let a lack of total consensus stop us from legislating. The difficulty would be to find a legislative slot if we came up with a solution that was acceptable to many in agriculture and to the House. It would, of course, be helpful if we had all-party agreement on what needed to be done".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/90; cols. 622-3.]
In our view, that is a significant statement and one to which no doubt the noble Baroness will refer when she replies to the debate. Paradoxically, all-party agreement may be easier to achieve than a common view of desirable changes in present law from the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and the Tenant Farmers' Association. Their views about alternatives to the status quo show wide disparity. That fact has been fully emphasised in today's debate.
Timing is of the essence in this matter, but apart from changes brought about as a result of the CAP there are indications that those who rent farm land may wish to consider alternatives, including disposals. For example, certain county councils are looking at the farm land that they rent to see whether they would be better off by selling. Pension fund trustees may also be in the mood to realise gains rather than retain assets in an industry offering reduced opportunities for capital gains.
As noble Lords who read the financial press will know, builders have been reducing the value of their land banks in their balance sheet to the detriment of the profit and loss accounts. In our opinion all that bodes ill for the tenant farmers and especially young persons who would like to start out on their own and who are well qualified to do so. If the Government care to take the initiative in this matter seeking all-party support we on this side of the House will respond and favour the kind of inquiry suggested by other speakers in today's debate.
In our opinion the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has given an indication of its willingness to respond positively in England and Wales. We welcome that indication. However, in the light of other speeches made during the course of the debate we must not forget the Scottish dimension. The debate has been most useful and we look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
4.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, it is some years now since we have had a wide-ranging debate on landlord-tenant issues. I do not think that I need to declare an interest as it is some time now since my father farmed or since I was a landgirl. However, I hope that the three years I have spent at MAFF have brought me up to date

35
on such matters. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley timed today's debate well in view of the current discussions within the industry on possible ways of revitalising the tenanted sector. I have listened to your Lordships with great interest.
Incidentally—stop press—the Bill of the honourable Member for Montgomery, the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill, completed its Committee stage, with government help, this morning in another place. During the past 80 years or so the proportion of agricultural land which is rented has decreased from approximately 90 per cent. to about 37 per cent. in 1988. Those figures more or less agree with those of my noble friend Lord Middleton. The main factors contributing to the decline—my noble friend Lord Waldegrave mentioned some of them—have been: first, socio-economic factors such as the redistribution of wealth, economic depression and changes in class structure; secondly, the effects of capital taxation; thirdly, the value of vacant land; and, finally, the legislation giving increased security of tenure to the tenant.
At this point I should like to mention compensation where land is taken for development. It is a matter to which the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred. It is important to remember that the landlord is the owner of the capital asset.
He should be entitled to realise it if there is a suitable opportunity. If landlords were deprived of that right, there would be another disincentive to fresh lettings. Compensation is clearly a contentious issue. I recognise that there is concern that the level of compensation provided for in the Agricultural Holdings Act is unsatisfactory, but no formula will satisfy everyone. Further, landlords can always offer more than the statutory minimum —and I know that some of them do so. The main problem for those losing land is the difficulty of finding new land to rent. We must not do anything which would make landowners more reluctant to let. The first priority must be to find ways to encourage landlords to let their land.
I return to the different factors in the matter. Such factors have assumed importance at different times. However, the results of last year's CLA landlord-tenant survey suggest that the agricultural holdings legislation is now the key obstacle. Financial and estate management considerations, the political risk and taxation are seen as being of less importance.
I think it is fair to say that much of the agricultural holdings legislation has its origins in the 19th century, at a time when the majority of tenants were likely to be relatively uneducated and would not be expected to take professional advice. One of the main aims of the legislation was therefore to protect the weaker party. This concept was carried through into relatively recent legislation and was taken to an extreme in the Labour Government's misguided 1976 Act which provided for two-generation succession. I do not need to remind your Lordships that a tenant farmer embarking on a career in 1990 is very different from his counterpart of a century
36
ago. Like any good farmer, he must be a businessman who takes professional advice as a matter of course and is therefore much better placed to look after his own interests.
I do not intend to venture into the CAP, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. However, I should remind him that, as my noble friend Lord Middleton implied, the tenant farmer is in a precarious position in some other EC countries. With regard to the CAP, I merely say that it is vital to get the overall framework right. That is precisely what we have been doing with respect to the CAP. I believe that we have turned the comer. We are of course pressing for all we are worth in Brussels for a substantial devaluation of the green pound, insisting upon more than the Commission has proposed.
Your Lordships will remember that we had hoped that the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 would stem the decline in the tenanted sector. Unfortunately, although it has proved to be a step in the right direction, it has not had the desired effect. It has only slowed the decline in the tenanted sector not reversed it. The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers' annual tenanted farms surveys show that since 1984 there have been more relettings than in preceding years, but the overall decline has continued.
The CAAV's recent surveys also show that, while many landowners are unwilling to enter into lifetime tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, they are prepared to use a range of short-term arrangements, partnerships and Gladstone Bower lettings of more than one but less than two years. That suggests to me that there are a significant number of landowners who do not want to farm their land but will only give up direct control of it if they can retain a much greater degree of flexibility than is offered by the 1986 Act.
I am conscious that some people question whether there will be a viable tenanted sector in the future, or indeed whether that matters. I should like to make it clear that we consider that the tenanted sector makes a vital contribution to the agricultural economy. We all worry about the future of agriculture and in particular the position of young people going into farming. My noble friend Lord Wise mentioned the would-be young farmers. They are the lifeblood of the industry. They are the ones who will ensure that it continues to adapt to the challenges that it faces, as it has always done in the past.
I regularly visit agricultural colleges and I ask students if they have jobs to go to. The answer is usually that they do but that opportunities for those whose parents do not farm or whose farms are too small are very limited. Their position is made much more difficult by the lack of land to rent. It is very important that a solution is found to this problem. The Government are concerned therefore that the current legislation seems to be strangling the sector. Change is necessary to cope with the demands of the 1990s. We are looking at the options and want to hear the industry's views.
For that reason I very much welcome the debate within the industry on ways of revitalising the

37
tenanted sector. It is encouraging that there is now a general agreement that some change is required. But, as your Lordships are aware, there is as yet no agreement concerning the wide range of proposals under consideration. These include retirement tenancies, fixed term tenancies, either for any term agreed by the parties or for a minimum term of between 10 and 25 years, and complete freedom of contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has introduced another idea, though I do not believe that his proposal is practicable. I hope that the industry's discussions will gain new impetus as a result of our debate today.
As regards the extended agricultural tenancy which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, the five land agents have obviously done a great deal of work. Their proposal for an extended agricultural tenancy provides an interesting contribution to the debate about the future of the tenanted sector. I shall certainly look forward to hearng the industry's views on that and on other proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, referred to tenants' homes. I want to make it clear that I am very sensitive to the question of how the farmhouse should be treated if there is a move to shorten term tenancies. I mentioned this to the Tenant Farmers' Association when I met its members recently. I am sure that the industry will be addressing this issue very seriously. I shall certainly be urging it to do so.
I am in the process of meeting the various groups with an interest in the issue and I make it clear to then: that we are looking for effective solutions to the problems. To be acceptable to us any proposals must genuinely address the problem and increase the amount of land available for letting. Furthermore, it would be obviously desirable for the industry to reach as much agreement as possible within itself.
However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Middleton. I assure him that we are willing to discuss proposals with the industry without waiting for a complete consensus. I am delighted to take the opportunity to emphasise these points to noble Lords today. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we cannot justify using parliamentary time for measures which will be of only very limited effect: effectiveness is the key issue.
Before I reply to other points made by your Lordships, I want particularly to assure all existing tenants that no one is suggesting that their tenancies under the 1986 Act would be affected by any new system which may be introduced. I hope that this statement reassures the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset.
My noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Swinton referred to farm incomes. They rose last year by 16 per cent. If I were to stress that figure to the House and if I had built my speech on it, I might have misled your Lordships into thinking that the picture is a rosy one. I did not because it is not. Last year's rise represents only a slight recovery from the significant fall in 1988. It also hides considerable differences between sectors and individuals. I shall not disguise the fact that for
38
many of our tenant farmers these are not easy times, with incomes under considerable pressure.
However, I do not believe that our farmers should despair. I am equally sure that all is not gloomy. The Government are firmly committed to the industry and well aware of its difficulties. We are continuing to provide very significant levels of support. Indeed, in the last year we have done several things to increase the help we give, in particular to those most hard pressed. For example, we have raised HLCA payments for hardy breed ewes. HLCA payments for those facing natural handicaps now amount to £125 million a year. Other measures have included raising BSE compensation to 100 per cent. and the suckler cow premium to the maximum permissible rate.
My noble friend Lord Swinton compared the position of arable and hill farmers. There will be a wide range of circumstances depending on the type of enterprise and its location. Government policy is to create a situation where market forces play a full role. However, we recognise the problems of those facing natural handicaps; for instance, through the HLCA system.
My noble friend spoke about the Countryside Commission and its idea for environmentally friendly farming. I understand the commissions' desire to encourage environmentally friendly farming. I am sure that many farmers, be they tenants or owner-occupiers, are keen to continue in their role of custodians of the countryside. Farming remains the greatest user of the land. The Government are already doing a great deal in this area through carefully targeted schemes such as the environmentally sensitive areas scheme.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley spoke about the economic position of tenant farmers. He suggested that tenants are in a worse position than owner-occupiers. However, thougth to a limited extent the economic position of tenant farmers depends on a different set of factors than those for owner-occupiers, the two groups have much in common and it would be wrong to separate them. Differences in income levels and trends are usually much more striking between the different types of farm—for instance, dairying and cereals—than between tenants and owner-occupiers. Indeed, figures for England from the Farm Business Survey suggest that farm incomes have been fairly similar overall on tenanted and owner-occupier farms since the mid-1980s. Morever, latest results showed incomes to be slightly higher on tenanted than on owner-occupier farms.
Most cost items are common to both tenants and owner-occupiers. Each has to buy feed, fertilisers, seed, machinery and other inputs; each needs to employ labour and each needs to pay interest on borrowings. In fact the latter cost is often much more keenly felt on owner-occupied farms because borrowings are usually greater.
One cost item which is unique to tenanted farms is of course rent. This, however, is a matter for negotiation between the landlord and the tenant. One would obviously expect farm rents to reflect economic conditions in the industry, but since rent reviews normally take place at three-yearly intervals,

39
rent movements may lag behind changes in the circumstances of the industry. However, latest information from the rent inquiry suggests that on average farm rents rose by only just over one-half a per cent. overall in 1989 or just over 2 per cent. on those farms where there was an increase.
Turning to capital, naturally, as I am sure noble Lords will recognise, a tenant's business is worth less than that of an owner-occupier because there is no land or buildings within the business assets. However, borrowings are also lower on tenanted farms. If one subtracts the borrowings from the assets of the business, the resulting net worth figure averages around £100,000 in England. I appreciate that there is much variation around this average, but borrowings exceeded assets on only 1 per cent. of those farms in 1989. For 60 per cent. or so borrowings were less than a quarter of their assets. The financial position of most of these businesses is, I would suggest, fairly secure.
Looking to the future, it is difficult to predict developments, but the major factors affecting farm incomes are likely to bear upon both tenanted and owner-occupied farms. For both groups and for all types of farms there is a wide range in farm performance depending upon a number of factors, not least the skill of the individual entrepreneur. For the future, farmers, both tenants and owner-occupiers, must be willing and able to make the most of the opportunities that are available to them.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she mentioned that she was going to listen to various representations about forms of tenure and so forth. However, neither she nor any other noble Lord today has mentioned share farming, in which there is a great deal of interest and which might be more universal as a form of contract if potential owners and tenants were more sure of the law in respect of such contracts. Will the Government look into the matter and consider share farming as one of the provisions for which they may legislate?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as part of the exercise I am willing to look at anything, but I do not believe that share farming would solve the tenancy problem. However, those who are involved in that kind of farming would find it worthwhile to put their two bits in with everyone else in an attempt to obtain some form of agreement which would permit us to bring forward meaningful legislation.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I believe that I have a moment or two left as I spoke for less than my rationed time at the beginning of the debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. If the problem could be put before noble Lords alone, I believe we could achieve a consensus. I shall mention a few points on which we were in agreement. We were all in agreement on the excellence of the landlord-tenant system and the financial position of the industry. If my noble friend Lady Trumpington is worried about that, I would
40
commend to her the recent papers of Professor Nix and Dr. Murphy on the dire state of the industry.
We were all agreed on the inability of the tenant farmer to save enough for retirement, on the difficulty of compensation and on the fact that the landlord should of course take the first cut. We were all agreed that we should try to produce legislation to help landlords let land. We also agreed that it was not necessary to have 100 per cent. consensus, although we could possibly reach some consensus.
I was delighted to hear my noble friends Lord Swinton, Lord Radnor and the Duke of Somerset say how much they valued the long let system. Certainly most of us agreed with the traditional landlord system of one let. However, I am somewhat doubtful about the surveys. It seems to me that they are of the kind that would ask me whether, for example, I preferred one chocolate or a box of chocolates. I would reply that I would prefer to have three boxes of chocolates. I feel that that may be the nature of such surveys.
Finally and most importantly, I was delighted to hear the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on the willingness and encouragement of the Opposition to look at this problem with an open mind. I also noted that my noble friend Lady Trumpington is charging round young farmers and others and will continue to do so. I hope that we shall achieve some consensus on this matter as both Front Benches are agreed on the important issues. That is not altogether a common occurrence. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Iraq: Customs Seizure
5.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, with the leave of the House, this may be an appropriate moment to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on export controls in relation to Iraq. On Tuesday 10th April customs officers at Teesport detained eight large steel tubes destined for Iraq which they considered might require an export licence under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. Subsequently, customs obtained related documents from firms believed to be involved. Experts from the Ministry of Defence later inspected the tubes and documents and advised that all the indications were that the tubes were components of a large-calibre armament, albeit of a scale outside anything previously experienced. The tubes were therefore seized and customs are making inquiries to see if any individuals or firms within the UK have committed customs offences.
"The House will want to know that, in the summer of 1988 the DTI was approached by two of the companies now known to be connected with

41
the manufacture of these components. In June 1988 Walter Somers asked if licences were needed for the export of metal tubes to Space Research Corporation in Belgium. In July, Sheffield Forgemasters asked if licences were needed for the export of tubes to Iraq for use in the polymerisation of polyethylene, and Walter Somers in August made a further inquiry related to that contract.
"On the information available at that time, it was decided that the export licences were not needed for these goods. Until a few days ago, my department had no knowledge that the goods were designed to form part of a gun. If my department had known that purpose then it would have advised that licences were necessary, and they would not have been granted.
"The Government recently became aware in general terms of an Iraqi project to develop a long range gun based on designs developed by the late Dr Gerald Bull. The goods that were seized at Teesport, and related documents, are consistent with what is known of Dr Bull's design. Subsequent to the seizure the Government have also received information about further aspects of the gun's development. The Government are enti rely satisfied that these tubes form part of a gun and that the customs action was correct.
"I would like to congratulate customs for last week stopping the export of these parts of the gun. I understand that it will not be possible to build a Complete full-sized gun from parts that have been supplied from the UK. I hope that the House will understand that, while customs inquiries are continuing into possible criminal offences, it is not possible to go further into the details of this case."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. It is by any standards an extraordinary story. We now know that the customs were right and that the tubes were destined to make a gun—that is, if the Government are to be believed. And we assume that the Government are right. We assume that the custons acted on information obtained from we know not where. However, I shall not inquire too deeply into that.
The extraordinary part of the story is the role of the DTI over the past year or so. It is on that matter that I wish to focus. The DTI had access to the specifications of these tubes at the time and knew from Walter Somers of the export of other equipment related to the project to the Space Research Corporation —the corporation which was owned and run by Dr Gerald Bull, a noted expert in long-range guns—obviously for re-export. Are we to believe that the DTI, which had the specifications of these two pieces of equipment in its hands, did not rumble the fact that this could be an Iraqi project? Is that seriously to be believed? If so it is an extraordinary commentary on the performance of the DTI at the time.
42
I suppose that we have to believe the Statement when it says:
"Until a few days ago, my department had no knowledge that the goods were designed to form part of a gun".
If that is the case why did the DTI not make the proper inquiries when it knew from Walter Somers that Space Research Corporation was involved? Space Research Corporation was known to be a corporation owned by Dr. Bull which was involved, not in petrochemical equipment, but in the design of long-range guns. Why did the DTI not check who was Walter Somers' client? If it had checked, the department might have come to a different conclusion.
What are we to make of the fact that the Government now say that a complete, full-sized gun cannot be constructed from the parts that have been supplied from the UK? What parts have already been supplied from the UK? Is it the case that 44 pieces of the alleged gun have already been exported to Iraq? If that is not the case what is the figure? What is the situation?
Over the last week we have had a succession of different briefings from different government departments on the nature of the object. We now know from the Government, in an official Statement, that they believe that it was a gun. This is yet another case of the DTI having failed on reasonable examination to pick up the truth when it was presented to it in June and July 1988. There have been many cases in the last year or two where the DTI has been at fault. It passes all belief that a properly organised department, with all the documents in its hands, should not have spotted that something was pretty odd about the contracts. By all means let us congratulate the customs, but let us yet again ask serious questions about the performance of the DTI and whether it is not guilty of negligence in this matter.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I do not propose to repeat the very relevant questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. As he indicated, it is yet another example of total inactivity on the part of the department of utter passivity, which is what the DTI has now become. Whether it is the Fayeds or Iraq, unless someone else tells the department to do something, it apparently assumes that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
In this case it was not as if the department was not approached. It was asked by Walter Somers in June 1988 whether export licences were needed. It was approached in July 1988 by Sheffield Forgemasters, and Walter Somers made a further inquiry in August 1988. The contracts in question were for metal tubes for the Space Research Corporation, owned and run by Dr. Gerald Bull, who, as far as I know, was not an expert in the construction of petrochemical plants. Did the department think that that was a normal commodity for him to want? Did it not consider that the export of tubes to Iraq by Sheffield Forgemasters required a certain amount of investigation on its part? When in September 1989 Astra discovered contracts for advanced propellants and boosters for a giant gun, was the DTI totally unaware of the fact? If it was

43
not, did it think that that was a perfectly normal contract for a British firm to be engaged in?
It makes one wonder what is going on in that ministry. It appears to be quite incapable of drawing conclusions from the strongest possible evidence. That is either negligence or extreme stupidity. There can be no other explanation for this amazing catalogue of events and mistakes.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the two noble Lords who have just spoken. Before doing so I should make the general comment that I find myself in a certain amount of difficulty. I cannot go into the details of what passed between my department and the companies involved while customs investigations are continuing. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that it would be wrong to prejudge the case until that investigation is complete.
However, two specific points were raised by both noble Lords, in particular concerning the 44 pieces which have already been exported. The eight large tubes which were apprehended last week are the crucial components. We do not believe that the design can be completed without those eight tubes.
As to the point that because of the involvement of SRC the DTI should immediately have smelt a rat, I have to say that whether a licence is needed depends on the item and not necessarily on the end user. SRC, as a company, is involved in several other businesses, including purely civil businesses, as well as in the manufacture of arms.
The point that I should like to make is that the plan has been foiled. Customs have done their work. The export of the weapon has not been allowed to be completed. We should all be grateful for that.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm what I believe he has just said; namely, that the tubes already exported are insufficient either in quality or quantity to enable the cannon to be constructed? Can he confirm that to be so? Can he also confirm that his department, quite apart from this case, will look and continue to look with some suspicion on applications for licences to export materials of this kind to Iraq given the way in which that country has behaved over the past year or so?
Finally, whatever might have been said about the Department of Trade and Industry, will my noble friend allow me to join in the congratulations to Her Majesty's customs who appear to have acted with alertness and intelligence?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I can confirm that it will not be possible to build a complete full-sized gun from the parts that have been supplied from the UK.
As to tightening up export control procedures, we must continue to rely on our existing checks and informative sources. The UK has an excellent record of export control. Let us not forget that we have
44
succeeded in withholding the essential components of the gun. If a similar case should arise we would use the same solution and stop the export.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, to what extent will it be possible for Iraq to obtain the remaining pieces from other countries which might be prepared to supply them? Is my noble friend satisfied that no other country is likely to fill the gap?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not know whether other countries are capable of creating the tubes which are missing. I suspect that Britain, which has an excellent record in that kind of development, is possibly the only country which could do so; otherwise, presumably, the Iraqis would have gone elsewhere in the first place.

The Forestry Industry
5.29 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor rose to call attention to the forestry industry in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the Motion I must say how humble I feel. I shall be followed by not only one maiden speaker —the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, whose speech I look forward to with great interest—but no fewer than three chairmen of the Forestry Commission and a recent chairman of Timber Growers United Kingdom Ltd. As a mere son of a past chairman of the Forestry Commission it may seem that I have the wrong position in the debate. However, I shall not let that deter me in any way. I am sure that those distinguished noble Lords will pick up any mistakes that I may make.
At the same time I must declare an interest. I have been planting and felling trees—mostly planting—all my working life. It is with some pride that I have passed my 1,000 acres of planting, among them some beech, some oak and some ash. I shall not divulge the other species in case I put the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, off her form before she stands up to speak.
The forestry industry in this country should first be considered in the world context. On the whole, wood is a diminishing resource. That is a recognised fact with regard to virtually whatever part of the world one considers. Let us take the extreme example to start with. In Brazil, for political reasons and reasons of greed, the rain forest is being demolished and burnt and the land then sold. The wonderful timber there is not even being used. I am sure that the same applies to the great hardwood areas in the Pacific Basin. One has only to be in Bangkok and watch the timber coming down the great river which flows through the city to appreciate that. Canada—another enormous area of woodland, particularly towards the west, containing quality woods such as the Douglas Fir—boasts that it is on a perpetual yield basis. However, any noble Lords who have been there recently or, perhaps more importantly, have visited over a period of years, will begin to disbelieve that claim as I do.
One should then cast one's mind closer home to Europe and this country. It will be discovered, without quoting any figures, that in comparison with the rest of Europe we are ill served with regard to the forestry industry. We grow a small proportion of trees over our land and we import almost all our impor:ant wood for manufacture. There is therefore a great deal of leeway to be made up. I wish to speak about that aspect, particularly in view of the fact that farming is perhaps not as good or will not be as good as it has been.
I should like to start by talking about the Forestry Commission. When I was a much younger man, I felt that it was a competitor, something to be feared with its relatively large acreage of woodland. As all noble Lords will realise, it is nothing of the kind. It was of enormous importance for me and other private foresters. It was created in 1919 to replenish the forests and the timber that was felled during the First World War. Woodlands were planted up very efficiently until the next world war and then again after the 1939 war. Noble Lords will have seen those forests.
The important point for me and for the country is that the Forestry Commission was able to fund that planting and therefore to attract industry. We are talcing about the forestry industry, not just the planting of trees. I am sure that without the Forestry Commission industry of that kind and size—large sawmills, proper pulp mills and chipboard mills—would never have come into existence. There would not have been the continuity of production from the private forests.
As I have become, like other noble Lords, a little more worried about the so-called peripheral sales of Forestry Commission land, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether that is to continue and, if so, how far it will go. I should like to ask him whether he shares my admiration for the Forestry Commission and my belief that it is of enormous importance to the country. I hope that he will reassure me that little more land will be sold off. Some people would consider that to be a form of back-door privatisation, as I have heard mentioned in this Chamber.
I should also like to mention the Forestry Commission in relation to the report on forestry which the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place has just produced. As noble Lords probably know, the report contains many recommendations. I am not tremendously in agreement with it simply because I think that there are too many recommendations, that it would be hard tc follow them all up and that the whole thing might become a nightmarish muddle.
If I understood it rightly, one of the recommendations is that the Forestry Commission would be divided into three regions, presumably Wales, England and Scotland. I am not sure about Northern Ireland. If that is one of its recommendations, I would be against it because the strength of the commission and the way in which it has been able to help the industry and private foresters in this country is due to the fact that it has been large and flexible. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that that split will not take place.
I am aware that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell is sitting below me. The other suggested split was the poacher-gamekeeper split; namely, that the regulatory side of the Forestry Commission should be divided from the wood-producing side. Although such a split was excellent in the case of the National Rivers Authority, I am much more doubtful that it would be of any use to the forestry industry.
We are dealing here with a completely different matter. It would be best if the Forestry Commission was left precisely as it is, without disturbance, to do its dual job of producing wood, which I put first, and then its important job of providing access and amenity for the general public—a job which came lately to it after the Second World War and which it does extremely well. It provides endless pursuits for many people.
That is the spine of English forestry. I should now like to look at private forestry. Here there is a considerable problem as there always has been. I hate to think that there always will be, but it is possible. The question is one of cash flow. You plant a tree and, if it is a deciduous tree, it takes 60 years to come to maturity and probably 30 years pass before you gain any profit from it. If you plant a lovely oak, you certainly do not see much benefit from it. Noble Lords will know that in the 1988 Budget the tax incentives were taken away from people who planted trees. You used to be able to plant trees under Schedule D, take the maintenance cost off your tax and finally sell your timber free of tax. That just about kept the pot boiling, with a few grants thrown in as well. Now all that has gone. The whole situation is dealt with by grants.
I myself brought up in your Lordships' House the matter of grants which is broadcast and told to everyone. They sound extremely good. However, a tree grows over a very long span of years and the grants become eroded by inflation. Some noble Lords may remember that debate in which I was able to cite figures to show that over a 10-year period —I cannot remember precisely which one but it was quite recent —the value of the grants went up by 94 per cent. but the expense based on labour (which is the major cost in forestry) rose by 726 per cent. At that time I checked the figures very carefully and I believe that they were right.
At that time the intention was to have a three-yearly review of grants. That was the best that could be wrung from the Government. I understand that that review either is in progress or has now been completed. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us something about that matter.
The next aspect of the forestry industry that I should like to cover is what I call corporate forestry. That was also hit severely by the taxation measures which were withdrawn in 1988. Big firms got together owners who had no particular inclination to plant trees but wished to take the tax advantage. That was, perhaps rightly, considered to be wrong. It was perhaps one of the main reasons why the tax advantage was taken away.
The fact is that corporate forestry was very important to the industry. A massive amount of timber was and is being grown which will be of great

47
use for the gross national product input saving in time. Without reinserting the tax situation, I should like to suggest to my noble friend that the Government look extremely closely at broadening the base of woodland ownership through such corporations. I do not know the details and I think that it would be extremely difficult. It would need some amendment to the Financial Services Act which has only recently been passed. However, I believe that that suggestion should be looked at, simply so that timber will continue to come forward.
I have one minute left in which to talk about amenity and I am determined to do so. When he was my chairman in Sub-Committee D, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, once sent me out in a snowstorm to look at the biggest planted forest in Europe. There must be some way of organising the situation with so-called blanket forests, so that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is not irritated by trees planted in head waters and acidifying the rivers and the noble Baroness is pleased that there are open spaces with wildlife and fringes of considerable dimensions of hardwood trees.
There is nothing much more to be said. I shall sit down and listen with the greatest interest to the distinguished Peers who are to speak. I beg to move for Papers.
5.44 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Earl has chosen a very good time to introduce this debate. When agricultural pressures are changing, it is quite likely that more land will be available, if necessary, for forestry and other purposes. I am sure that the debate this afternoon will be helpful to those who make the decisions.
The value of forests is greater than just the value of the timber produced. It is greater even than the value of jobs provided by the timber industry. The noble Earl has already mentioned the global importance of trees. We have come to learn in the past months how very important they are in cleaning the air of carbon dioxide. I understand too that in terms of carbon dioxide collection young trees are much more valuable than mature trees. That seems to me to be an argument for a dynamic forest industry. We should all think of that when we set out to defend the old forests which so often people do not want to see felled.
Forests also contribute to education and recreation. Suitably managed deciduous woods, as the noble Earl just said, meet all the requirements of conservation. They provide an invaluable wildlife habitat and can enhance the local landscape. So why are conservationists and foresters so often in conflict? The answer must lie in the way in which forestry operations are managed and directed; that is to say, in the shape and application of our forestry policy.
That policy, as presently operated by the Forestry Commission, attracts criticism from many informed sources. On 1st February this year the House of Commons Agriculture Committee published a report, entitled Land Use and Forestry, to which the
48
noble Earl has already referred. It criticises the lack of government policy to deal with agricultural land now surplus to food production requirements. It examines five possible alternative uses for such "surplus" land and concludes that the most significant alternative land use in the next 20 years is likely to be forestry.
The report than examines the present arrangement for forestry direction and management. It finds many flaws in the existing situation and makes a number of positive recommendations for the future. The noble Earl felt that there were too many recommendations but in fact the document as a whole is extremely useful and covers the whole field of land use, not just forestry.
That report and its recommendations met with widespread approval. The Council for the Protection of Rural England supports many of the recommendations. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds welcomed the report as:
"a breath of fresh air in forestry thinking".
The Country Landowners' Association approved of the arguments for a more broadly based system of support. So far the Government have not responded and I hope that when the Minister replies today he will give us some idea of when the formal response to that report can be expected.
The recommendation at paragraph vii on page xlvi is fundamental to the future of United Kingdom forestry. Under the heading "The Forestry Commission" it states:
"We believe that the two functions of the Forestry Commission—as Forestry Enterprise and Forestry Authority—should be divided between separate departments.
This would remove the perceived conflict of interest within the present Forestry Commission in its roles as nationalised industry and regulatory body and provide the opportunity for a more broadly based Authority to oversee the development of multi-purpose forestry".
The noble Earl said that he wants the Forestry Commission to remain as it is, but there is the element of poacher and gamekeeper which was so widely quoted in the creation of the National Rivers Authority and which I believe is equally applicable in this case.
That recommendation has the support also of the RSPB and the CPRE. At this point I should declare an interest as a council member of the RSPB. The RSPB would like to see a full review of forestry policy. It stresses the need for diverse forestry to produce not just timber but "public goods" such as environmental benefits. It considers that the use of environmental impact assessments in forestry should be improved and expanded and questions the validity of the national planting target of 33,000 hectares per annum. It is difficult to discover how that figure was obtained. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten us in his reply. I have seen copies of correspondence between one of my honourable friends in another place and the Secretary of State for Scotland in which my honourable friend tried to discover how the figure of 33,000 hectares has been arrived at and he received quite unsuitable replies.
The Pamham Trust in Dorset is doing excellent work in training craftsmen in wood. If possible it

49
uses only indigenous timber. It is very concerned that so little attention is paid to the quality of United Kingdom-produced trees. Mr. John Makepeace, who is the director of the trust, has developed techniques for the use of roundwood and the use of laminates which gives forest thinnings considerable commercial value and could give hardwood growers a return on their investment much earlier than they would normally expect and much earlier than the figures that the noble Earl has quoted.
Leading conservationists have long opposed blanket conifer afforestation of the uplands. That approach to forestry is destructive to landscape and wildlife and the value-for-money aspect of the exercise is often questionable.
The CPRE calls for greater controls of forestry. It presses for the creation of multipurpose woodland. In maintaining its objection to large scale conifer plantin g of the uplands, it points out that changed agricultural policies could bring more lowland forestry into existence if backed by the right financial incentives. I believe that we should ask the Government to give their attention to that aspect.
The CLA also draws our attention to the need to switch the emphasis in forestry policy away from quantity towards quality. It assures us that landowners would welcome the new opportunities to invest in forestry which could flow from incentives to satisfy multiple objectives in new woodlands. It would like to see a more active role for the Forestry Commission in advice to landowners in identifying markets.
For once the needs of conservation and commerce and the possibility of relief of rural deprivation are all in harmony. I hope that the Government will seize this unusual opportunity and take the wise advice being offered from so many well informed bodies.
Much good work has been done and continues to be done by the Forestry Commission. But the time has come for a fresh look at its purpose and direction. The pit-prop policies of the mid-20th century are no longer appropriate for the century's end and will certainly not meet the needs of the future.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not know a great deal about forestry. I have planted only about 12 acres of trees in my life. I planted them in a farm woodland scheme of my own. And although the passage of 40 years has not been long enough for me to reap some financial benefit, at least the trees provide shelter. That is quite useful when the west wind sweeps through the howe of Strath More.
There is a general realisation that trees are a good thing and that we need them for our economy and as an amenity in the countryside. I can think of no better person to introduce the debate than the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. He is a dedicated forester and actually knows about the subject. That is a great virtue at any time.
I wish to make one point. Continuity of policy is absolutely essential if we are to improve the look of the countryside and our economic position. Two major c hanges, one of them only recent. have upset
50
the pattern. I understand that planting last year was down to less than half the projected figure and that it is expected to recover slowly. I stress the phrase, "expected to recover". That is no way to run an industry which is so long term. When one considers the past, the great period of planting trees was through the late 18th and the 19th centuries. In Scotland there is a saying that one should plant a tree that grows when one is sleeping. Such passion was for the descendants of the people planting the trees; it was not for direct gain.
Big tax advantages have encouraged many people to put money into forestry. I am sorry that the Government have been frightened by stories about Terry Wogan. Why they should be frightened by his putting money into trees, I do not know. It seems a perfectly respectable thing for him to do with his money. However, we now have a new scheme. I trust and hope that the Government will produce a further policy that will give desperately needed continuity.
One of the worst actions of the Government was to remove money from the Forestry Commission to plant trees in the belief that this would be done almost entirely by the private sector. I was delighted to hear the firm support of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for the Forestry Commission. It appears to me obvious in this day and age that the state must take an interest in the planting and maintenance of our forests, not only in the excellent advisory capacity of the Forestry Commission, but in the actual planting and maintenance of trees and in the planning of the planting so that the ancillary industries can be set up in the right place. That is extremely important.
A great deal may not come from the set-aside and the farm woodland scheme. I believe that the farm woodland scheme will be extremely useful in providing amenity. But it is unlikely to provide a tremendous amount of planting. It removes land permanently from food production. It is by no means certain that we shall not need that land once again to produce food. Apart from that, there are industrial crops that can be grown and developed. For example, we can produce paper from agricultural crops which would save the tremendous import of pulp into this country. I therefore believe that the Government must consider the long term.
I ask the Minister whether he has read the report from the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain. It contains many admirable suggestions for spreading interest. But these need government support and fiscal policy directed towards them. If one is going to plant trees for the future, the Government might consider the position regarding inheritance tax and give full relief for people who spend their money in this way. If they are doing so for their descendants they do not want it eroded.
The forestry industry is a necessity. It is a passion for some people and an industry that any government must encourage by all means possible. I trust that that encouragement will be permanent and that policy will not be changed in the middle of its operation as during this past year when nurserymen had to burn millions of trees. I ask the Minister for an assurance of continuity of policy.
5.58 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I am well aware that there are many expert foresters in this House, probably more than in any other place, even than in the Forestry Commission. Most of your Lordships' families have been planting trees for centuries. If one goes, as I always have the good luck to do, to see the Buccleuch estate, one sees proper forestry, with landscape and all the rest of the technicalities of forestry; if one goes to see the Forestry Commission woods they are abysmal.
I differ from my noble friend Lord Radnor. I do not think that the Forestry Commission is doing a good job. I shall briefly sketch through its history. We know that it started in 1919, which is not very long ago. I believe that its chairman, the late Lord Lovat, was a very good choice. He had a large forest; he was a Fraser and they are always clever.
Later the commission obviously had a remit to buy any land that it could find. In 1967 I was taken to an area in Sutherland which the late Duke of Sutherland had practically given to the commission to plant in order to provide jobs for the boys when they came back from the war. You never saw such awful stuff! I understand that the trees did not grow so someone threw in a match and started again. When I last saw the area it was slightly better but it was not very good.
I told that little tale because I was amazed that anybody was allowed to plant the Flow Country, which is somewhere in Sutherland or Caithness. No trees will grow and it is crazy that forestry syndicates can persuade people to invest money there. I like birds but such planting will certainly extinguish any birdlife there. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, spoke of the RSPB. I can assure her that in my area on the English side of the Border the commission has blanketed the whole area with its black trees. Therefore, much of the birdlife that I knew in my youth will never be seen again. It is probable that we shall never again see merlins, grouse, golden plover and so forth.
I am annoyed even more by the fact that when in 1925 the commission acquired about 100,000 acres from the trustees of the Angus estate they planted Kielder Forest. They planted every acre and it is the worst form of land management anyone could devise. You blanket the whole countryside with no thought of any amenity. I discussed the matter often with the late Duke of Northumberland, who said that he was very sad about the situation. He said that the right way to plant big hill land was as follows. If he had a 3,000-acre farm—and he often had more—he would go out with his forester and his shepherd and ask what would suit the trees. He said that he would plant sheher blocks, and he did that.
He and I suggested to the then chairman of the Forestry Commission that that was the right way of planting. When we took the chairman to see the area the Duke asked, "What will you do if I drop down dead and you have a 5,000-acre farm?". He said, "We will do just what you have done". With one voice we said. "Liar", because we knew that they would plant every single yard. The commission had the most marvellous opportunity to produce good
52
areas of farms, lakes and amenities but I have never seen it do so. The only place it ever did that was at the top end of Grizedale where it carried out a kind of amalgamation. Other than that it has ruined the northern areas.
I am saddened even more because I do not believe that the commission ever thins its woods; it appears to have given up doing so. I can show you woods that were leased by my father for half a crown an acre. Formerly they were deciduous woods, but what are they now? They are black trees with a sprinkling of larch which have never been touched since they were planted in 1950.
Does the commission want to sell the woods? It finds independent valuers to value the areas and then ask appalling prices so no one buys them. One would have thought that it would have enough sense to put them up for auction where a fair figure would be paid. I cannot make out whether it wants to keep the woods or sell them. I do not believe that anyone knows the answer. I am hoping that by the end of the debate someone will have told us. I do not see why we should not sell woods which are not convenient. I suppose that there is a good case for keeping a block of 50,000 acres under the commission. But is it to buy more land or not? Has anyone decided? I wonder what the answer is. In any event, I shall not go on and on about the Forestry Commission, but I want to know what will happen next.
My next point is that the forestry authority as such takes at least six months to grant a felling licence. That is our experience in the North, which is absurd. Our area is governed by an office in York and the employees have never heard of Cumbria. You ring them up and ask, "What about a licence?". There is no hope because the chap does not know where we live. We have only one forestry office left in our area, which is probably the largest area of forest in Britain. What is to be done? Are we to go on waiting for felling licences? There is no question but that all the figures that it issues are incorrect. A friend of mine who is a forestry contractor may go to buy 1,500 tonnes of pulp wood but may receive only 1,000 tonnes. He does not pay for the extra, but the figures are wrong. There will be an appalling shortfall by the year 2001. If no one thins their woods, they cannot grow. I do not know what the authorities are doing or what they want to do.
I should like to see the forestry authority taken away from the Forestry Commission. Let the commission run its own woods and run them well. There must be a zoned area for each forestry authority. Whether it is called Scotland, Wales, North or South England would not matter. We hope that if the right officials are employed they will come up with the right answers.
I should like to see areas such as the New Forest put in the hands of a separate organisation. All such areas which are visited by thousands of people, should have nothing to do with the Forestry Commission. It is good up to a point, but surely such areas should be run by a different authority such as the local county council.
I am keen on amenity planting, although my grandfather was much better at it than I am. He was

53
an artist so he had a good eye for colour and knew where to put the trees. Grants are available, although recently I rushed to find them but discovered that they had all gone. However, I have booked for next year. I should like to see bigger grants because the planting of small areas of beech and oak is extremely costly and one never sees the result.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, it is my first duty to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, on his interesting and challenging maiden speech. I am certain that speakers who follow me will respond to his challenging remarks. In all fairness and charity I must say that his experience of the activities of the Forestry Commission is at great variance with mine. I assume that that is also true of other ex-chairmen of the commission who are present in the House.
I am delighted to see that at least three former chairmen of the commission, several ex-members and Ministers to whom I was responsible when I was chairman are present in the House this afternoon. There is one simple message that I should like to go out from our debate. Please, Lady Nicol, it is not that there should be a new look at forestry policy. We have had plenty of those in the past few years. Forestry requires long-term certainty and planning. A long-term strategy should be aimed at in order to promote what is a long-term industry. The message I should like to go out from our debate is quite simply: hands off the Forestry Commission.
In recent years I have noticed a substantial diminvtion in the responsibilities of the Forestry Commission. The selling of land, which began as an exercise in tidying up, had led to another planned disposal of 100,000 acres before the end of the century. In 1980 the commission's planting programme was 15-8 hectares; last year it was 4,500 hectares. That would not be so bad if private enterprise was taking up the slack in the planting programme. However, last year the local planting programme reached only 12,000 hectares against the target of 33,000 hectares, which the Government have regularly accepted. That is a very serious matter for a very important national industry.
As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, mentioned —and I sat as a commissioner under the leadership of his distinguished father who was a great chairman —the Forestry Commission was not a competitor with private enterprise. It was in partnership with it. Occasionally we competed for purchase of land but essentially it was a partnership pursuing the development of forestry. We shared experience. The Forestiy Commission provided the research for private enterprise forestry in this country. In the countr/side we were always good neighbours and pursued a policy of being good neighbours. We undertook most of the training in the forestry industry and were the pioneers in the development of recreation—camping sites, forest walks and so on—which the private sector has also followed in the past few years.
Most important, because we were a large commercial organisation we could make long-term arrangements in marketing. To attract substantial investment into the new wood processing industry
54
there has to be a major supplier to give some sort of guarantees of supply. Therefore, the Forestry Commission was neither a competitor nor a monopoly. It was part of a partnership encouraging a sensible forestry policy for the United Kingdom in both the private and state sectors.
The decline of this industry is a serious matter. The Government must tell us where they are going now, with a planting programme of 12,000 hectares last year against a target of 33,000. Large-scale investment has been made in wood processing plants on some sort of guarantee that home grown timber would be available in the future. It is a large employer of labour. Questions were asked in this House quite recently about the decline in rural employment. I know that some people would prefer to see parts of Scotland as a large wilderness in order that they may enjoy their occasional recreation in those areas. However, there is nothing more interesting and exciting than a living countryside, a countryside in which men find employment and in which families can live. If we are to cut back on forestry and planting as we are doing at present, large areas of Scotland will be left without schools, life or interest.
Therefore, I appeal to the Government to change their course. They have not been wise in the changed fiscal arrangements which they have made for forestry. I hope that they will read and in due course reply to the report of the Select Committee of Agriculture, Land Use and Forestry, because the opening paragraph states that in the new fiscal arrangements for forestry:
"The announcement was made after the minimum of consultation within Government and no consultation outside Government and had the immediate effect of undermining confidence in the industry. It also raised doubts whether anyone in the Government was looking at the forestry sector as a whole and giving thought to the fundamental principles which should guide its development".
I hope that the Government have a reasonable response to this criticism.
Finally, as regards the future of the Forestry Commission the idea in this report that there should be a split between the forest authority and the forestry enterprise is not a sensible proposition. The people who must discharge their duties in the forestry authority are the same people who are exercising and carrying out duties as the forestry enterprise. They cannot be split. The combined experience of the two sections of the industry is required. I hope that the Govememnt will not continue to reduce the Forestry Commission or on account of dogma allow it to be privatised. I hope that they will not accept these proposals about dividing it into enterprise and authority because they are parts of an industry which require to work together.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Radnor for enabling us to debate this important subject and to listen to such a spirited maiden speech.
I intervene to make one particular point about the environmental impact of forestry and the results of research which we now have into the serious problem

55
of acid water in some of our uplands. Before I do that, I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am not hostile to forestry and have no doubt about the positive benefits which it can bring if planting is properly planned and is done in the right place. For nearly eight years I shared ministerial responsibility for the industry. I was particularly closely involved with the development of the Shotton paper mill and I know very well how substantial is the contribution made by forestry to the national economy and particularly to the creation of jobs in the countryside and in the forest-related industries.
The huge and escalating balance of trade deficit in timber products is a compelling reason for encouraging afforestation. There are equally compelling environmental reasons for replacing the timber cover which has been so depleted down the centuries. It is not only the tropical rain forests which provide a defence against the greenhouse effect. Surely any policy for sustainable development must involve the replacement of the soft woods which provide 80 per cent. of the timber resource for the industrialised nations.
Therefore, I share the concerns already expressed that changes in the grant and tax structure have led to a sharp decline in new planting. I believe that the Government must look again at the package if their own repeatedly stated objectives are to be achieved.
I hope that this time the examination will take place in a calmer and more rational atmosphere than on the last occasion. Yes, tax breaks can be abused and blanket afforestation in the wrong place can be damaging. Yet a number of cases on which I had to adjudicate as Secretary of State led me firmly to the conclusion that with proper planning and consultation it is, more often than not, possible to reconcile conflicting objectives and obtain a wide measure of agreement. I suppose that in my own way I went out with the noble Earl's forester and shepherd to take practical decisions about practical issues.
My plea this evening is that proper planning and consultation are essential if forestry is to receive public understanding and backing rather than sustained hostility and if we are to avoid serious damage to the environment. As chairman of the National Rivers Authority I am particularly concerned with the water environment. A more comprehensive and effective system of land use planning covering agriculture, forestry, waste disposal, urban run-off and other causes of contamination will be needed if we are to halt and reverse the serious decline in the quality of many of the streams and rivers which sustain our principal fisheries.
Major research carried out particularly in Wales and the South-West in recent years has shown unmistakeably the scale of the damage being done by acidification and the contribution to that process by coniferous forestry in some geological and soil conditions.
A senior executive of the Economic Forestry Group said to me in a letter recently that the problem is not the forests; it is the pollution. That is true up
56
to a point. It is essential that emissions from power stations and other industrial sources be substantially reduced, but there can be no doubt that forestry is an important factor contributing to the grave damage being done in areas such as the head waters of the River Tywi. Trees are very effective collectors of airborne pollutants which are then washed into streams or percolate through the soil when it rains, releasing aluminium and other minerals into the drainage waters. Unfortunately aluminium can kill fish and other water life, and it is a problem which must be tackled by treating drinking water for the public.
It seems to me that the scientific evidence for these statements is overwhelming. The recently published book Acid Water in Wales brings together recent research by scientists from the universities, NERC research institutes, the Welsh Water Authority and the NRA and demonstrates,
"that in a substantial area of upland Wales, particularly the Cambrian mountains, streams and lakes have either acidified or are likely to acidify over the next century unless there are significant changes in emission and land use policies".
In these areas, rocks are slow weathering and the soils have little or no acid neutralising capacity. Data from these sensitive regions show that streams draining plantations of conifers are more acid and contain higher concentrations of aluminium than streams draining moorland. There are many other upland parts of Britain where similar conditions are found. In some soft water streams and lakes in mid and west Wales the sources of some of our major salmon and sea trout river fish populations have been almost totally eliminated.
Hardly anyone taking part in this debate needs convincing regarding the seriousness of that situation. Many noble Lords are as keen and knowledgeable about their fishing as they are about their forestry. However, I am concerned that there has been a recent tendency in the industry to dismiss the evidence or simply call for more research. I believe that the time has come for action. The trouble is that no system exists for land use planning in upland Britain. Decisions on land use change are taken by individual farms and commercial forestry interests, which was a point very well brought out in the report of the Forest Industry Committee of Great Britain.
My case is not that I want to stop forestry. I want to see more of it, but in the NRA we believe that we have to have a land use policy to restrict forestry in those areas where it is likely to cause significant damage to the water environment. We should like to see the Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations amended so that the NRA can require an environmental impact assessment for those plantings, grant-aided or not, which it believes may have an adverse effect upon quality.
If that sounds negative I must make it clear that I also want clearly identified the places where plantings should take place. That is exactly what the system of regional indicative forest strategies in Scotland is designed to achieve and what the Forest Industry Committee recommends when it asks for a structured rather than an opportunist approach to land selection in order to achieve the positive and

57
balanced contribution that forestry can and should make to our economy and environment.
6.24 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, for his forthright speech. In the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the industry is still going through a transitional period after the 1988 Budget changes; so this is a suitable time to take stock. The question is whether we should be looking to plant more trees or whether we should be stopping in our tracks. After all, timber consumption in the UK is of the magnitude of £7 billion per annum, of which 90 per cent. is imported. That is the equivalent of one-third of the current trade deficit, with the constriction industry contributing most significantly to that element of the deficit. The projection is for the UK demand to increase by at least 17 per cent. over the next decade. The trade deficit must be borne in mind when the overall picture of forestry is looked at.
We know that growing trees is long term. Decisions can be taken this year regarding new plantings but it will be another five or six decades before the effect is seen on any future deficit figure. However, that is no argument for procrastination.
In declaring my interest as a woodland owner I should equally like to declare an interest in conservation. Like the vast majority of those who work in, and help to shape, the countryside, I believe that production, be it of food or timber, should be synonymous with conservation of the environment. It is thus axiomatic that the expansion of forestry in the UK would contribute positively to our environmental state, not just regionally, but nationally and globally.
An expansion of forestry would benefit the UK environment not only by creating and sustaining a capital resource for the future, but, for instance, in providing recreation. Trees can accommodate leisure pursuits more easily than open land —from walking and orienteering through motor rallies, war games and many other pursuits in between. That must be part of the aim for the proposed community and urban fringe forests. They will improve the quality of life for the adjacent townspeople but, like forestry in general, such planting will not happen if the finances are not carefully planned.
Other benefits of expansion would include variety of landscape, with varied species of different age classes cleverly juxtaposed. That is an emerging science and one needing further encouragement and study.
Greater planting, which is a viable option on much of the land previously used for agricultural surpluses, would give greater security to the processing sector and add value to the raw materials. Since 1983 £800 million has been invested. That has meant the latest technology and has brought sustained rural employment. The uncertainty of today must not be allowed to jeopardise this industry with resultant knock-on effects.
The Government ask the industry to provide facts, not fears. We know of the 12,000 hectare shortfall
58
in planting. But the evidence in my part of south-west England is that the motive behind the WGS and farm woodland planting is improvement of amenity and sporting facilities. There was initially much resistance to the new concept of the broadleaved policy that production of marketable timber was no longer to be the main object of management. While I welcome that sort of planting, commercial planting for timber should be encouraged in England as well as in Scotland and Wales. To continue both types of expansion the Government should help to promote multiple objectives.
Despite the body blow of the 1988 Budget there is no going back. Forestry can go forward and thrive, but it needs a little fiscal help. May I suggest, first, a maintenance or management grant to help maintain employment and prevent neglect in that trough between planting and thinning. As we have already heard, the removal of forestry from inheritance tax would end the anomaly where a single growing product is taxed every generation, hitting the capital value and inhibiting the planting of long-term hardwoods which span up to four generations.
Furthermore, the grant scheme could be amended to encourage better woodland design by including bare land in the forest, wide rides, butterfly lawns, water and even wild flowers. I cannot believe that those measures would amount to any significant cost. I wonder whether the Government have costed, even considered, introducing any of them.
I expect many people will ask where extra planting should go. We have just heard that Scotland has the new indicative forestry strategy. Perhaps I may go into a little more detail. This identifies three areas: first, the preferred area for forestry where it will attract new investment; secondly, potential areas which pre-identify any local issues or constraints that need to be accommodated; and thirdly, areas that are sensitive and under much less pressure for planting.
This planning process greatly reduces the hassle in new schemes because the environment and the economics can proceed together. In turn, all interests assemble their data and justify their case in advance. Therefore, the reactive and opportunistic approach to development, sometimes seen in the past, is largely eliminated. Let us hope that that enlightened strategy can move swiftly south of the Border. I wonder whether the Government will give any active encouragement on those lines.
Finally, who will be making this investment? We hear that the nurseries have destroyed 40 million trees and that planting levels are seriously down. I am certain that confidence can be restored with a clear statement of positive commitment together with the financial adjustments I have outlined. These would appeal to two types of potential investor that the Secretary of State for Scotland envisaged recently at the excellent CFC luncheon; first, the small investor, then the financial institutions and the pension funds. I suggest that we permit the smaller investors to enter co-ownerships by allowing forestry companies to pay dividends tax-free. That would surely be in the spirit of the 1988 Budget.

59
How about "planning gain" where an otherwise absentee landlord would be encouraged to use his investment and perhaps build a cottage in his woods? Above all, these investors need stability, not major announcements about a major industry made amid great secrecy in a Budget Statement. That is no way to inspire confidence. This stability should be extended by leaving alone the Forestry Commission, as we have already heard from a number of speakers. I shall not go into more detail on that aspect.
The industry is ready and itching to go. It will clear up after the recent storms. It must forget about the 1988 Budget, but it needs a clear commitment of positive incentives and stability from the Government.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Radnor has brought forth a great number of views on what is a complicated industry—the forestry industry. The past few years have seen some dramatic changes in the industry, both in the woods and in the mills. We have also seen changes in the attitude of the general public towards forestry and of foresters towards the other claims on woodland areas.
The code of practice advice produced by Timber Growers United Kingdom is an example. Here I confess an interest as I have been chairman of TGUK for three years following 10 years as a Forestry Commissioner, which has given me some idea of what goes on in the forestry industry. This code of practice, if followed, improves the methods of creating woods and goes a long way towards satisfying other interests, too. Among other things, it lays down that conifers should not be planted close to running water.
As has been mentioned, there is great anxiety about the decline in planting, particularly in Wales, where the figure is very small. This has been largely caused by two factors: the removal of the Schedule D/B tax option and the strong opposition of the Welsh Water Authority. In over half of Wales there is a presumption against planting because of the acidification problem referred to by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell.
I accept that planting of conifers near watercourses can be very harmful. My noble friend made a notable contribution to this debate. There is very little of what he said about acidifcation that I disagree with. He also referred to the indicative strategies which have been worked out on the initiative of the Forestry Commission—and the private side, I remind your Lordships—with the Scottish regions. This may be more difficult to achieve in Wales but it is as well to remember that any planting application now is scrutinised not just by the Forestry Commission but by the water authority and the local authority. Therefore, there is far less risk of damaging planting being carried out. Indeed, I remind your Lordships that there are vast areas which in my view could well be planted. They are a long way from watercourses, are covered with bracken and are habitats for nothing but rabbits.
60
Anyone who has travelled over them in a helicopter, which I admit I have not done recently, will have seen the great size of those areas.
There has been huge investment in modem machinery in the mills, and that has greatly increased demand. In the woods the gales of 1987 and of January and February of this year have blown down, I believe, 20 million trees and possibly more. It is encouraging that the markets have stood up so well. A glut of trees and a very dry summer in 1989 have filled timber yards. Ten years ago that combination would have hit the markets for six. The industry is now far stronger. Credit for that must go to private enterprise, to the Forestry Commission —referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—and to the Government, who to a large extent funded the incoming firms.
I should like briefly to refer to broadleaves. A review of broadleaf policy is at present being conducted and we are hopeful that Ministers will listen to the evidence put forward by the practical foresters. After all, they are the people who have to plant the trees and probably pay for them as well. I hope that some heed will be given to their evidence.
I stress the importance of growing the right trees on the right soil. There is no point in growing oak trees at over 1,000 feet altitude. There is no point in growing oak trees where the last crop after 140 years has been cut down and found to be shaky and useless. However, that is what we are at present being asked to do. The private woodland officers of the Forestry Commission are not empowered by Government Ministers to do anything else but insist that broadleaves should be planted where broadleaves were planted previously. In all sense, that must change. It is only a small point but it would make a great deal of difference. Private owners have no appeal system as a last resort.
We are spending, as a country, considerable sums of money on encouraging broadleaves in both the private and the public sectors. That is a total waste of money unless Ministers come forward with a policy on the killing of grey squirrels. Grey squirrels enjoy eating the tops of trees and the leaders. Unless something is done, such expenditure will be a total waste of Treasury money.
Finally, I come to the report of the Commons Select Committee on Forestry. It is good in parts. It recommends a management grant, which is most acceptable, and this would help to keep our woods in good order. However, its recommendation to carve up the Forestry Commission—both the enterprise and the authority—and to put it into Scotland, England and Wales, is pure lunacy. We have something good, so why knock it about? It has had enough knocks in the past few years and in my view we must keep a reasonably large forest enterprise to give backing and experience to those who administer the Forestry Authority. In my view the Forestry Commission is a fine service. As I said, I have seen it at first hand. In spite of recent reorganisations, morale in the service is very good. Abroad it is recognised as one of the best state services in Western Europe. We need to be proud of it. Forestry needs a period of steady, balanced expansion with recognition of the benefits that multi-purpose forestry can bring to our country.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like to start by declaring an interest as a forester. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, on his speech and the well-deserved criticism of the Forestry Commission.
The first point I should like to make concerns the lack of success of the woodland grant scheme in boosting planting. There have been a number of applications but as a rule they never get taken up. We have heard that the target is 33,000 hectares. Last year 12,000 hectares were planted, and in 1990 it will be 7,500, so it is simply not working. Set-aside may help, but the Government must look at the grant scheme again if they want to keep up planting.
Reduced planting will have a disastrous effect not only on forestry but also on the processing industry, and in addition to that on potential investment in the processing industry if people who are going to invest start to wonder whether the planting is going to go up and down according to changes in policy.
Following the fiscal change in 1974, it took no less th in 11 years for the planting to recover. It is interesting that in 1989 the nurseries lost some 50 million seedlings. If we wanted to plant again in a big way those seedlings would not be there and nurser es would think twice about growing so many if they thought they would all have to be burnt again.
For forestry to thrive it must obviously be economically sound. One essential is a balanced, integrated industry, with wood processing in every region, One of the problems of forestry is the large cost of haulage. No only does each region need to have its forestry processing capacity, but obviously those should vary in each area. To take an obvious example, there is the beech processing in High Wycombe and people growing beeches in that area. It is an interesting fact that for every pound which the grower receives from forestry the finished product is worth about £15 by the time it has gone through the processing. In New Zealand it is actually £31, 30 times more than the cost of the raw timber.
We have a £6-5 billion import bill in forestry. That is about half the country's balance of payments deficit. We should aim at having 50 per cent. self-sufficiency in this country in timber industry output-not forestry, because we could not do that. I believe that the Government should ask the Institute of Chartered Foresters to prepare a plan to see whether that could be achieved.
The public feel that softwood is an anathema; in fact, il is a dirty word. I believe that that feeling is founded on prejudice fed by bad forestry management, in particular insensitive planting and insensitive felling over a long period by the Forestry Commission —this has been pointed to in previous speech es —where there has been blanket forestry and impenetrable trees, which are thoroughly offensive. Yet nearby —I am thinking of Eskdalemuir —there is private forestry, planted with rides and lots of open land, where there is exactly the same species of sitka but the wildlife has doubled and it is an environmental asset.
It is interesting that, while we denigrate softwood, some of us save up to go to the American West Coast to see the sequoias, to the Black Forest, where I was
62
the other day, which is mainly Scots pine, or even to the areas of access to the Forestry Commission, those few areas that it has looked after which people like to visit because they have been cleared out.
Eighty per cent. of the timber requirements in this country are for softwood, so it is nonsense to try to convert this country totally to hardwood, not that that would work anyway.
In previous times we have been able to maintain our forestry throughout its life—that is to say, brashing, thinning, pruning—with all the essential hard work that produces high forest of good quality. Now that the system has changed —management will be very expensive —that probably will not be done. Much objection has been shown to the black sitka, tree, but now it is said,
"There is only one economic solution to forestry, that is to blanket your land with sitka and never touch it because it will be too expensive to maintain, so put something down which you do not need to maintain".
That is exactly what we do not want, but it is exactly what that policy will point to.
The key to acceptable forestry is not in the variety; it is in the shape of the planting and the management. Whatever tree you get, if you manage it correctly, prune, brash, clean and thin it and produce a final crop, it will look just as good and nicer than a lot of hardwood plantations which have perhaps been neglected.
The problem with management will be cost. I should like to return to something I said in one of the debates on crime. I believe that the enormous amount of brashing which should be done to improve the quality of our forests, in particular those of the Forestry Commission, could be undertaken by convicted offenders. Instead of sending them to prison, where suitable they could be made to brash so many acres of forestry. It would make them work, make them get up in the morning and in the end they would have done something useful and the country would have benefited. I think that is a point which should be followed up.
It is absurd to attack the forestry investors. The country wanted people to invest in forestry, and when they did they were told "You can't do that, you are avoiding tax", so they stopped it. To my mind, that was absurd.
There is talk of 30 per cent. hardwood and of various percentages that should be planted. Again that is meaningless. Twenty per cent. in rows 30 foot apart ends up as 100 per cent. hardwood. Thirty per cent. in blocks ends up as not more than 30 per cent. A lot of the talk of percentages is meaningless.
I should like to finish by saying that we should design forests better and encourage better management, and that we must have increased grants if we are to succeed with our planting.
6.48 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, like many other noble Lords who have spoken I have to declare an interest in that I plant and fell a few trees, mainly for amenity.
I much enjoyed the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Carlisle, and I was very glad to hear that

63
he thinks Erasers are clever people. I hope he will not have changed his mind by the time I sit down, because not for the first time I am going to defend the poor old conifer.
Two important facts to realise are, first, that, as the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has just said, 80 per cent. of the timber requirements of this country is for softwoods; and secondly, that Britain not only still imports 90 per cent. of her £7 billion worth of annual consumption of forest products but that her consumption is forecast to increase by 17 per cent. by the year 2000.
Therefore, it would appear to follow that either we shall have to grow a far higher proportion of our own requirements or we shall have to import once again more than 90 per cent. over the next 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has pointed out that we are not even planting as much as the Government's target. But shall we be able to import more than we do at present? Shall we even be able to continue to import at the present level? Apart from the adverse effects on the balance of payments of doing so, to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and my noble friend the Duke of Somerset have referred, will the timber be available?
The depletion and destruction of the world's natural forests is now universally deplored as environmental awareness has grown, and it is doubtful whether we shall be able to cut down other people's forests, whether tropical or the conifer forests of the northern hemisphere, which are also under heavy pressure and whose destruction affects climate, global carbon fixing and so forth. Even were we to continue to assist in their destruction, one day not so far off they will no longer exist and then what shall we or our children do? Is it right that we should deplete the world of its renewable assets by not renewing them?
A recent report to the Government by the International Institute for Environment and Development mentions the idea that, to ensure that the next generation has the same productive potential as the present one, it is necessary for us to pass on a stock of assets no smaller than that which we ourselves have inherited —a concept well known to landowners both great and small from time immemorial but apparently less well known to governments.
So we have no alternative but to try to grow a far higher proportion of our own timber requirements. That means softwoods and principally the much maligned sitka spruce. It grows quickly. It is a most versatile tree, both in the variety of latitudes and soils where it will grow and in the variety and quality of its many end products, from paper to construction timber. It is the tree which can best supply our industrial demand in the future, taking the pressure off other less robust and slower growing trees and off semi-natural woods which can thus be managed for a wider range of environmental benefits. It is the bread and butter crop which will finance and underpin many of the non-profitable benefits which forestry offers and to which many noble Lords have already referred.
64
It is necessary to regard the growing of timber as a crop, a crop which may not be to everyone's aesthetic taste but which is just as important as wheat, barley, potatoes, turnips or rape. There are certain caveats. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, mentioned the acidification of water. It is also a greedy feeder and a thirsty drinker. If the rainfall is inadequate it will "steal" local water supplies, and it is liable to exhaust the land.
My noble friend the Duke of Somerset has already spoken about investment in the processing sector and about the socio-economic benefits which are derived from the forestry industry. The Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain's recent publication The Impact of Forestry in the United Kingdom, based on an independent study by the Eraser of Allander Institute at the Strathclyde University Business School, has demonstrated that the total value of the output of the United Kingdom forestry industry is five times greater than previously appreciated. Indeed, £2 billion of output, £552 million of household incomes and 55,000 jobs are involved. We owe this largely to our conifer resource.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has said, conifer plantations need not be ugly blocks of unrelieved dark green. They can greatly enhance landscapes, particularly in winter, as at the Queen Elizabeth Park at Aberfoyle. The edges of plantations need not be straight lines, although it is cheaper to plant so. A requirement to do otherwise would need to be taken account of in the levels of planting and maintenance grants. In Upper Deeside, there are plantations where larch and naturally regenerated birch scattered through plantations of Scots pine, with rowan and gean at the edges and also in some cases scattered throughout, combine to give a rich and varied colour both in spring and in autumn. This is a great attraction to tourists and also makes the countryside a delightful place for the local inhabitants.
Additional environmental benefits are that conifers are efficient fixers of carbon —4 tonnes per hectare per annum, as against beech at 2-5 tonnes per hectare per annum—and the carbon continues to be locked up in the processed wood product. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, say that young trees are more efficient at this than old trees. Young people work more efficiently than old ones anyway.
Misleading statements have been made in the brochures of Friends of the Earth urging the use of recycled paper. They say:
"Each year 90 million trees are cut down to supply paper for the United Kingdom alone. Indigenous forest, rich in plant and animal species, is being replaced by thousands of acres of conifer plantation with soil erosion and acidity as a result. Using recycled paper reduces our need for these plantations".
The facts are that in this country conifer plantations are not replacing broadleaves, for it is not permitted under broadleaves policy. Paper and board products are made from thinnings and tops derived from plantations grown to supply saw logs for construction and so forth. Acidification derives primarily from atmospheric pollution from industry, although it is true that it is the trees which absorb it and conduct it into water sources. My time is up so I shall sit down.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Radnor for initiating this debate and I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, on his maiden speech. He has fired his first salvo and we look forward to hearing him again.
The Country Landowners' Association brief for this debate states:
"Forestry is still far too much a source of conflict in the countryside".
I thought that this was a rather good text to start on, particularly in view of what has been said so far in the debate which has been if nothing else controversial. Much of this conflict could, I believe, be disposed of if forestry schools and colleges broadened their curriculum to cover countryside affairs in general, giving a much greater perspective to the young forester. Young men who have just finished their forestry courses seem to know little of the countryside other than how to grow trees.
I shall give one example. A young forester fresh from graduation came to me recently and told me that a certain planting had suffered badly from rabbit damage. As there were no rabbits in the area, this mystified me. A quick look soon revealed that the damage had in fact been done by sheep getting out of a nearby field. Any individual with some country background would clearly have seen that. I am afraid that we are seeing too many young men of that kind at our forestry schools.
Another example is that certain forestry workers have only recently been stopped from putting their feet on any nests of Capercaillie which they find. These birds have become so rare that we may soon have to protect them. It is terrible that instructions used to be given to destroy their nests. Several forestry companies murder all deer that go near their plantings, in and out of season, often to the great detriment of neighbouring deer forests.
Phosphates are sprayed from aeroplanes onto plantations, polluting our water. The Economic Forestry Group has a wildlife branch in Eskdalemuir. The head man there has done an excellent job and has carried out much education not only of his own company but of many other bodies, including the Green Party. But even this company has not extended what he has taught there beyond Eskdalemuir. It is a great pity that it does not do the same in other parts where it manages forests. What a difference there is with German foresters who really do have a knowlege of what goes on in their woods.
The Forestry Commission has no wildlife ladder. Would it not be a good example for the Government to follow if what has happened in Eskdalemuir was practised in the public sector? I do not want to be critical of the commission. It has done much good work and is at least some sort of brake on the financial conjurors who call themselves forestry companies and who leave the Government with little alternative but to do something to curb their activites, which unfortunately sweep all forestry into the net.
On a different tack, most planners know little about trees. As they are the people responsible for
66
the layout of the countryside for the future, this can have disastrous consequences. Once again, that seems to fall back on their education.
Roadside trees are another problem. Roads engineers seem to think that trees are something to be destroyed; that they are a danger to the motorist and should be cut down. The salt which is put on the roads is in any event highly destructive to trees. Many places along our new roads are being planted with trees. That could be very nice and beneficial, but once again no allowance has been made for the fact that the trees could grow to a substantial size if they were allowed to do so. They could then become a danger to the motorist. In my view they have not been looked at from the point of view of what they will be like in 20 years' time.
I was told recently by the region's archaeologist that we could not replant a plantation as it was near a stone circle. I emphasise the words "replant" and "near". My family have looked after that stone circle for 400 years and I have myself done so for many years. Therefore, noble Lords can imagine that I was not best pleased when I was told that I could not plant this area as it might interfere with public access and the archaeologists' digging activities. We are getting more and more interference with our efforts to grow and look after our trees from people who know nothing about trees. If we are to continue to look after them, we shall need some help.
I shall conclude with one final brief problem. We are being encouraged to grow more hardwoods. I have with me a cutting from one of today's daily papers. The Economic Forestry Group wants to plant 1,300 hectares of mainly farming ground in the north-east Highlands. The Nature Conservancy Council is reported to have complained that only 10 per cent. of that massive plantation will be broadleaved trees. But what is to be done with even 10 per cent. of these trees? There is no market for hardwoods in the Highlands, or very little. You can of course sell them for firewood; indeed, beech is only required for firewood. Oak and ash can be transported to England but the costs are enormous. If foresters and landowners are to grow more hardwoods—and I hope that they will—there is a great need for further outlets for their products in the North.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, this debate is taking place in the shadow of the severe losses of trees caused by recent gales. Immediately after those gales, I walked around our tiny hill farm in Wales and saw the sad sight of 20 fine oaks which had been blown down. Others have suffered much more. For example, the famous Selbourne hanger has been devastated. We all have to set to and replant.
It is unfortunate that commercial forestry has led to so much controversy, echoes of which we have heard during this debate, not least in the maiden speech of my noble friend, which I much enjoyed. Commercial forestry has tended, regrettably, to get itself a bad name. Why is that? There have been perhaps three reasons. The first was the tax dodges by celebrities which were stopped by the 1988 Budget. Secondly, there has been the slow but strong public

67
reaction to the errors of past policy—the monocultures of softwoods, hard edges to plantations and the lack of regard for landscape needs. Thirdly, there is the planting of the Flow Country, which the NCC, perhaps to its cost, brought to national attention. That did more than anything else to damage the image of forestry nationally.
However, there are some encouraging developments. First, there are the plans of the Countryside Commission for a Midland Forest and 12 community forests, including three in Wales near Swansea, Neath and Cardiff, and the generally far-sighted views which the Countryside Commission has put forward on forestry which it continues to advance. Secondly there is the work in Wales of Coed Cymru in promoting proper management and natural regeneration in Welsh woodlands. Far too many of those woodlands are dying because of overgrazing by sheep, which has been encouraged by the unsatifactory method of giving grants on the number of sheep one has thereby encouraging overstocking. Coed Cymru is a real success, but it needs funding to give it proper security for the future. Its work could well be imitated in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, there is now generally more emphasis on hardwoods and native species. For example, there is the farm woodland scheme. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, say that it was not working. The figures that I have seen suggest that it has been quite successful. Recent government policy has been helpful. Fourthly, there is now more evidence of better and more imaginative planting. Fifthly, foresters are now reported to be looking at birch as a potential commercial species. I see that the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain is funding research at Aberdeen University on the benefits of native birch in Scotland. There have certainly been good results in Scandinavia, and especially in Finland, with properly selected varieties. In my view, more research is needed on the commercial growing of birch in this country.
I am especially concerned with the situation in Wales where I live. The Environmental Study Group of the Prince of Wale's Committee, of which I am vice-chairman, examined many aspects of the question at a seminar held at Lampeter last September. The committee's report is now available. The Council for the Protection of Rural Wales has also just published a study, based upon a year's work, which calls for a coherent forestry policy in Wales. It also makes a number of detailed recommendations which I think are worthy of study.
I continue to be puzzled that the policy announced by the then Secretary of State for the Environment on 16th March 1988, that approval would not normally be given for new planting predominantly of conifers in the uplands of England, gave no similar protection to the uplands of Wales or Scotland. The explanation subsequently given by the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland were not very convincing. If conifer afforestation in the uplands has effects in England which persuaded the Government to disallow it, it seems odd that they continue to permit it in Wales and Scotland.
68
As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out in his speech with all his authority as chairman of the National Rivers Authority, the particular problem in Wales is acidification. As he said, this is of great concern to fishermen. Indeed, the Welsh Salmon and Trout Anglers' Association, of which I have the honour to be president, asked to see the Welsh Office about the matter. We were most courteously reveived, had a valuable discussion and were encouraged by the understanding attitude that we encountered.
I mentioned that problem when I asked a Question about conifer afforestation in Wales on 18th July last year. I pointed out that 60 miles of river in Wales had had to be downgraded because of acidification and that many lakes —in fact, between 8 per cent. and 20 per cent. of all the lakes in Wales—had been affected. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said then that he thought the dangers mentioned in my Question were grossly exaggerated. I felt constrained to write to him afterwards pointing out that everything I had said was based upon information from Welsh Water or on what had been said by government spokesmen. I said that I did not accept that there had been any exaggeration. I received a helpful letter afterwards from the Director General of the Forestry Commission.
We have now received word from the Royal Society, and its colleagues in Norway and Sweden leading 30 teams of scientists who were reported on 29th January as saying that their researches conclusively prove the link between acid rain and the destruction of aquatic life in thousands of lakes and rivers. They say that trout and salmon in up to one-third of rivers and lakes in Scotland, and large areas of the Lake District, Wales and the Pennines, have been wiped out or badly affected by acid rain. In some areas acid levels are so high that it will be impossible to reverse the process. Many less affected areas can be saved, although it may take decades. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, does not think that the Royal Society is guilty of exaggeration. We shall need to study the report carefully when it is published in October.
Unhappily, the great majority of scientists who have studied the problem concluded that, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, conifer afforestation does make the problem worse on base poor soils such as we have in mid- and North Wales by reducing the Ph and increasing the release of aluminium, which is toxic to fish. For example, the research done in Wales on two rivers running into Llyn Brianne, has shown that on the river where there is afforestation with sitka spruce and lodgepole pine, aluminium concentrations in that river, the Tywi, are substantially higher than in the river running from unforested land, the Camddwr. It is a pity that the Forestry Commission tried for so long to resist the consensus of scientific opinion on this, like those who tried to persuade Galileo that the world was flat.
Where do we go from here? The NRA, Welsh Water, the NCC, the Countryside Commission and the RSPB have just submitted proposed guidelines to the Welsh Office and the Forestry Commission.

69
I hope that these can be considered very carefully. More generally, what I believe needs to be done in Wales is for there to be far more consultation between forestry and other interests. There should be something like a fresh strategy for forestry.
Commercial forestry should not normally be allowed in the sensitive upland areas of mid- and North Wales but it should be encouraged lower down the hill. I agree with my noble friend the Duke of Somerset that we need multi-purpose forestry as advocated by the Countryside Commission. There should be more mixed plantings, more broadleaves—perhaps encouraged by relief from inheritance tax on broadleaf woods—and fewer monocultures. In that way forestry can regain its proper place in the countryside and serve many interests, such as timber production, employment, landscape, wildlife and recreation.
7.11 p.m.
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, we have had a most instructive and, I hope, a very useful rural afternoon. It has been a long afternoon for some of us. I was very interested to hear the start of this debate on forestry and the spirited defence of the Forestry Commission by my noble friend Lord Radnor. He was immediately followed by a notable and bold attack on the Forestry Commission by the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle. I think a balance has been held by hearing from one side and then the other all through the debate. I am pleased that, in my own view, if I were asked to adjudicate, I could say that the Forestry Commission won—though with certain reservations, because no one is perfect.
It was very interesting to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, because he was chairman of the commission for a while and he also served under me when I was chairman for a short time. Then, in some ways he was rather an enemy. The Economic Forestry Group was always said to have an open chequebook to out-buy us, because we had to work very strictly with the Treasury. He has obviously been converted to the Forestry Commission and no doubt he continues to support the Economic Forestry Group as well.
To me, and I am sure to other noble Lords, one of the most important speeches was that made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. It indicated that there is something in what the anti-foresters say. I accepted completely his arguments that the conifer can do damage to water and therefore he must try to stop that. If conifer afforestation is properly done, the conifer is the economic tree. In the end the whole subject comes down to a question of economics. People in the private world cannot be asked to maintain a large and public essential industry if it does rot pay and we have to import enormous quantities from overseas.
I do not think that the value of the conifer can be denied if it is planted well and in the proper place. It grows very well in this country. It should be planted in the proper place and treated in the proper way. It is subject to stresses on the natural side for which we are responsible. As a young tree, the conifer and also the hardwoods is subject to some of the pests that we have introduced. The real trouble was
70
caused by the rabbit. Myxomatosis was the best grant that had ever been given to the forestry industry.
Unfortunately, the rabbit is coming back and I do not know what we can do about it if it is immune. The elm beetle took away all our elm trees and that was a terrible occurrence. People are now saying that certain regenerated elms are growing again. There are some on my own property which we believe are growing again. It may be that as soon as the elms return the beetle will also come back and the elms will disappear again.
The rabbits will be much more difficult to cope with. It will be a total waste to plant hardwood trees, as my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt very cogently argued, if they are to be eaten almost at once by rabbits. Rabbit damage will also destroy a great many other indigenous trees. The rabbit will take all the sycamore at its very young stage. Not only is the old and mature sycamore a very useful timber, it is also a very beautiful tree, though the young sycamore is rather a tiresome weed. The rabbit put an end to that and will do so again in the future.
In our love of nature, the Duke of Bedford, and Lord Tavistock, imported the grey squirrel. That has proved a perfectly frightful check on forestry everywhere. I hope that one day we shall find some means of protection against the grey squirrel. The Forestry Commission has often been criticised for blanket plantation in straight lines. The reason for the straight line is because it is very much easier to string a wire fence to keep out the sheep belonging to my noble friend Lady Elliot. If a wire fence is made in a wavy fashion it does not stand up and it is not good craftsmanship.
When the noble Lord, Lord Taylor and Gryfe, and I were members of the commission together, we moved a little way towards the straight lines. We appointed Dame Sylvia Crowe to advise us about these matters. She immediately recommended wavy lines though we said that these were rather expensive and not very effective among the trees. However, the environment is improved if straight lines are eliminated. That was in the far-off days of 1962-63.
I have forested on a very small scale all my life. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Moran, speaking of the natural regeneration we may get from birch and that it may prove to be an economic timber. One used to be able to make cotton reels with birch but that use no longer exists.
That is often the problem. Often in an industry such as forestry the timber that grows best is not wanted. I am sure that we must have a national forestry policy. That will be needed while we are establishing forests. The forests that I planted 40 years ago are just beginning to be saleable, though instead of selling the timber for pounds I am selling it for shillings. However, the market has stood up much better than I thought it would. Whole blocks of conifer trees have been sold. Purchasers are taking the best trees. As long as the trees are not rotten, they are fairly easy to remove. I would never have cut the trees down as I am far too old; I wanted to keep them just to look at. However, I have had some of my conifers felled and I have found a market for them. Yet I doubt whether I shall find such a market I for the hardwoods. That is a great loss not only in

71
financial terms but also in aesthetic terms for the whole country. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, mentioned the storms that we have had. I believe that he was the first speaker to refer to that.
7.21 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we must thank the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for raising this matter of forestry. The importance of the industry cannot be denied, as has been shown by the speeches that we have heard from knowledgeable noble Lords all round the House. The last time we had a forestry debate was, I believe, about four or five years ago. I was thanked by the Minister who replied to that debate for almost taking away all his thunder in replying to the points that had been made. I shall try not to take away the Minister's thunder this time.
I declare an interest in that I was chairman of the Forestry Commission for a few years. I have also planted a lot of trees in the past and am still planting trees although I do not own any land. However, I am still interested in planting trees. I lost a few trees that I planted 30 years ago as a result of the storms in January but I replaced those trees last month.
First and foremost, I wish to be blunt about the question of the two industries that occupy the land of this country; namely, farming and forestry. They employ many people and produce much wealth. Several noble Lords have mentioned the fact that over the past few years there has been considerable criticism of those two industries by environmental bodies. The impression those bodies give is that the control of the countryside and of those two essential industries must fit into their plans. However, the opposite is the case. The environment must fit in with farming and forestry. There is no reason why that cannot be done to the satisfaction and benefit of everyone. I cannot stress that point too strongly. I was most interested to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland make that point in a speech given at a luncheon a few weeks ago. Sir David Montgomery, the ex-chairman of the Forestry Commission, made the same point in an article in the Farmers' Club journal.
However, today's debate is about forestry and its importance. I do not want to go into details as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, did that carefully, but figures show that we should be planting more than we are at the present moment. Conifers and hardwoods cover just under 10 per cent. of land in this country. That is almost the lowest percentage of afforestation in Europe. I wish to point out to noble Lords that in this country we have 18 to 20 million acres of what is called rough or hill land. If we were to double our acreage of plantations over the next few years we could replant somewhere in the region of another 9 million acres. However, not all of that planting would be on the rough or hill land as some land situated lower down hills may come out of agricultural production and could be used to add to that afforested acreage. That would still leave about 10 million acres of free land spread all over the country. That seems to me to be plenty for ramblers and environmentalists to wander over to their hearts' content. However, one only has to plant a small
72
forestry plantation for people to object and complain that it spoils the countryside or that it spoils their view. A person called Brasher wrote an article in one of the newspapers the other day. He wrote that he has walked across the Lairig Dhu. He said that when he walked on the low ground he could not see the countryside because of trees that had been planted. However, if the lazy devil had walked across the top of the hills he would have had lovely views. Those kinds of people give foresters a bad name when there is no reason for that.
Many noble Lords have said that we should maintain a steady progress as regards increasing the size of our plantations. The removal by the Government of tax relief for plantations two years ago was disastrous. I do not know whether the grant system will prove as effective as tax relief. Time will tell whether that is the case, but, as has been pointed out, planting has almost halved in the two years since tax relief was removed. The point is that we shall never get industry to invest in processing plant unless it can see that planting is being undertaken year after year and that the acreage of plantations is being increased. If that is done, it will make a tremendous difference to employment in various areas and to wealth production in general. The Eraser Trust report showed the tremendous effect that the production of wood has on the processing industry over a wide area of wood-based production. I attended a craft event the other day and I was amazed to see four stands selling nothing but wood-based products. That just showed how much some industries rely on wood.
I shall now turn to some of the criticisms that have been made. My noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt used the term "lunacy" —that term is perhaps a little too strong—as regards the proposal to separate within the Forestry Commission the forestry authority from the forestry enterprise. One could argue in theory that the activities of the authority could be carried out by a bureaucratic body. However, when one considers the ramifications of forestry and the knowledge that the people working in the forestry authority obtain from the people in the forestry enterprise and to a certain extent vice versa, one can see that it would be a huge mistake to separate the two bodies. Most noble Lords who have spoken argued in support of that point.
Criticism of the Forestry Commission goes back a long way. I noticed that a lot of noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, who was a forestry commissioner for some time, spoke about the Forestry Commission. I wonder whether he realises what the remit of the Forestry Commission was. That remit was to replace the trees lost through two wars. A certain amount of money was made available for that purpose. I can imagine the criticism that would have been directed at the Forestry Commission if it had left wide rides unplanted on land that had been bought for the purpose of plantations. There was no remit from the Government for any environmental work.
However, the Forestry Commission has since taken up the point about the environment. It cannot be said that it is doing nothing. I have a bundle of booklets here which show what the commission is

73
doing and the advice that it gives. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, looks at that bundle of books. I forget what adjective he used but he agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle. I suggest that they both look at what the Forestry Commission is doing and the advice that it provides. Between 80 million and 100 million visits are made to Forestry Commission forests each year. That does not sound as if the British public dislikes its forests.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am delighted that the commission has learnt how to do it at last. It has taken some time.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, it has taken time because the original remit did not include that power
Private forestry has been mentioned. Eskdalemuir has been referred to several times because forestry has been done well there. One has only to go to the forests of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, to see what he does or look at the layout of the Scottish forests of the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, which are all conifers. Criticism of the forestry industry's record on the environment may have been justified 20 or 30 years ago but it is certainly not justified now. However, it continues, as we heard today.
I could spend quite a long time on the points raised by the noble Lord. I have half a page of notes on what he said. However, I have probably said sufficirnt for him to realise that I do not agree with what he said.
I discussed the matter with a private forestry company recently. The company believed that asking for greater acreage from hill land was wrong and that we should rely on higher production from lower, marginal land. That may be the case, but I do not believe that as much land will come out of agriculture as has been suggested.
I do not want to say much more as time is getting on and I am sure that the Minister will want to say a great deal about the Government's plans. I hope that they are good plans. However, there are one or two points that I should like to make. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, was very anxious—like most of us—for long-term investment and continuing expansion for the reasons that I have given.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made a point about acid water. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out where the acid came from. Conifers do not produce acid; they catch the acid rain that is created by the factories of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in the valleys in Wales. He should concentrate on stopping the factories releasing acid rather than blaming the trees. If rivers near forests collect more acid as a result then we should see that the trees are planted further away.
I should like to thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for defending the sitka spruce. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, made a point which I missed about wildlife. Perhaps I shall have a word with him afterwards. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, was very clear about what he wanted. The question of
74
pests in forestry was mentioned and it is important. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, would simply shoot every grey squirrel that he saw. Of course, if you plant beech trees grey squirrels have to go. That applies to the other pests that have been mentioned.
We have had an interesting debate. I hope that the Government have taken note of the importance that we place on forestry and that we shall have a very good answer from the noble Earl.
7.35 p.m.
The Eari of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, once again the debate has demonstrated the depth of knowledge that resides in your Lordships' House on the subject of forestry. I shall do my best in the time remaining to respond to as many of the points raised by noble Lords as I can.
I wish first to thank my noble friend Lord Radnor not only for calling the debate but also for employing his considerable knowledge to remind us of the early aspirations of those who established the Forestry Commission in 1919 and gave this country its first national forestry policy. I should also like to thank him for setting out some of the many changes that have taken place over the years and for sharing with us his thoughts on the forestry industry today. The noble Lord most ably set the scene for the debate.
Although I speak from these Benches on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I must declare a private interest in forestry in the county of Angus.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, on his maiden speech. He made a number of interesting points, not always uncontroversial but none the worse for that. It was a most interesting maiden speech and I hope that he will return to speak again soon.
My noble friend Lord Radnor made reference to the commission's disposals programme under which it has been asked to sell some 100,000 hectares of forest land over the next 10 years. There is nothing sinister in that. It is not, as has been suggested in some quarters, privatisation by the back door. The commission manages a very large estate at present and since it will be able to acquire land for planting over the next decade it will still be managing a large estate in the year 2000. The disposals programme, which has been running successfully since 1981, will return some of the assets to private ownership in accordance with the philosophy of this Government as well as allowing the commission to rationalise its land holdings to the benefit of its enterprise activities.
My noble friend also mentioned the splitting up of the Forestry Commission. It has been said by Ministers on a number of occasions, and I shall say again today, that the Government have no plans to privatise the Forestry Commission. The commission will continue to have a central role in the development of forestry in Britain. Your Lordships will be aware of the recommendation of the Agriculture Committee of another place that the Forestry Commission should be split up with forestry enterprise being separated from the forestry authority and the forestry authority itself divided among England, Scotland and Wales, On that point

75
I can only ask noble Lords to be patient and to await publication of the Government's response to the committee's recommendations.
My noble friend Lord Radnor and the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, made the point that private forestry is in need of more government assistance if it is to play a full part. As your Lordships will know, the Government are not short of advice on that subject. Specifically, we have been conducting a full-scale review of our broadleaves policy. We have had a full assessment of the state of the private forestry sector and a number of recommendations from the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain representing the whole industry. We have had the benefit of the report of the Agriculture Committee of another place on land use and forestry that followed a wide-ranging investigation lasting two years. The government are giving the most careful consideration to all the evidence that has been laid before them on the direction that forestry should take and on the best means of encouraging forestry investment and achieving satisfactory levels of planting.
Your Lordships will appreciate that I cannot reveal the Government's thinking today. Perhaps we are holding the debate a little early. What I can say is that it is likely that a government statement on the outcome of the broadleaves review will be made before too long. I hope that the Agriculture Committee will be in a position some time next month to publish a report incorporating the Government's responses.
This is certainly a time of change and reassessment. I take the opportunity to restate the Government's strong support for the expansion of forestry in this country and to assure noble Lords that all that has been said in this House today will be noted with care.
My noble friend Lord Radnor also mentioned corporate forestry. I see that a case can be argued for encouraging the man in the street, the small investor, to take a stake in forestry through corporate or other means. However, it is a complicated subject involving, among other things, the proper protection of the investor and company tax law. I hope that the noble Lord will bear with me if I do not venture into that area today. However, I have taken careful note of his remarks. I shall pass them on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, mentioned the greenhouse effect. The Government are very much aware that trees absorb carbon dioxide and thus help to counter the greenhouse effect which is of so much concern to us all. The Government are doing a great deal to help to protect the tropical forests, but developed countries such as ours have a part to play by increasing their tree cover. Our record is a good one. We have increased our tree cover for the past 70 years from 4 per cent. of our land surface to some 10 per cent. today. It is government policy that forestry in this country should continue to expand.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, also commented on the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture on land use and forestry. I have noted the points
76
that she has made in support of some of the recommendations in it. Although I cannot anticipate the contents of the Government's response to the wide-ranging report, we hope that it will be published soon.
The noble Baroness also asked how the target of 33,000 hectares of annual planting was arrived at. The Government made a policy statement on forestry in 1980, when planting at the rate of the previous decades —some 30,000 hectares —was seen as achievable and desirable. That figure was raised to 33,000 hectares a year in 1987 as part of a land use review in recognition of the fact that more land was likely to move from agricultural use. Again, that is an achievable aim.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, expressed concern over some aspects of the industry today and referred in particular to the removal of tax reliefs in the 1988 Budget. It was right for the Government to remove those tax reliefs, although it should not be forgotten that interim arrangements will subsist until 1993. Those tax reliefs have been in place for a great many years and in making the changes the Chancellor acknowledged that the tax system should continue to recognise the special characteristics of forestry, with its very long time cycles between investment in planting and income from selling the felled timber.
However, the Government were concerned that that should be done in a manner designed to provide a simpler and more acceptable system of support and which avoided the previous arrangements under which top-rate taxpayers in particular had been able to shelter income from tax by setting it against expenditure on forestry, while effectively enjoying freedom from tax on the income from the eventual sale of the timber. I accept that the tax provisions resulted in a great deal of planting which might not otherwise have taken place, but increasingly they were seen as anomalous and were a cause of widespread public criticism and increasing conflict between forestry and conservation interests. In other words, it was all leading to a major loss of public confidence in forestry. The forestry industry found itself in a tax straitjacket and it is to the benefit of the industry that the Government have released it.
I am not suggesting that the changes have been without pain. As noble Lords are aware, some tree nurserymen had to burn part of their stock, particularly where they were growing sitka spruce on a large scale, and some forestry companies have lost a great deal of business. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong to suggest that the forestry industry is in any kind of crisis. Far from it; the industry is now much better placed to expand in ways that will attract a broader measure of public support.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to planting by the Forestry Commission. It is the Government's continuing intention that most of the new planting should continue to be carried out by the private sector. However, the Forestry Commission has a modest new planting programme of its own —some 4,000 to 5,000 hectares a year. That has mainly been in remote and less fertile areas where afforestation will help meet social and economic needs and in areas where further planting

77
will contribute to the rational management of the commission's existing plantations. However, the Government keep the position under review and there nay be a case for considering changes to the commission's programme when it is government policy that specific types of planting should be encouraged.
The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, referred to forestry in the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland. The peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland are recognised as internationally important blanket bogs and we have obligations as signatories of the RAMSAR and Berne Conventions; but we must not forget the contribution of forestry to the economy of Caithness and Sutherland. Contrary to what the noble Earl alleged, trees grow well in that part of the world. The timber yield is above the average for Scotland as a whole and trees grow there at twice the rate they do in Scandinavia. Planting started in the 1920s. About 60,000 hectares are now planted, supporting a significant number of jobs at present, with more jobs in prospect as the timber matures. Without further planting, at least two-thirds of the existing jobs would be lost and the opportunities for downstream wood processing would not materialise.
The Highland Regional Council working party did a praiseworthy job in producing a land-use strategy for that part of Scotland, a strategy which has the support of all the bodies involved, including the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission for Scotland, and which has been endorsed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Clearly, a balance can be reached in Caithness and Sutherland between nature conservation and afforestation. I am sure that the necessary good will and understanding now exist to bring that conflict to an end.
The noble Earl was critical of the Forestry Commission's planting practices. It would be wrong to compare past practices, when public perceptions and government policies were so different from today, with present forestry practices. The first generation forests, like Kielder, to which the noble Earl referred, are now reaching the end of their first rotation and the opportunity is being taken to convert those forests of an even age into attractive and more varied landscapes and wildlife habitats, with a mixture of types and ages of trees.
The noble Earl also mentioned the Forestry Commission's disposal programme. The commission has been asked to sell 100,000 hectares of land by the end of the century. The commission itself will decide what is to be sold and will take the opportunity to rationalise its estate and increase its efficiency. The commission will continue to have its own planting programme, so it will still be a major forest manager in the year 2000.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell raised the point of acidification of water courses in the forest areas. As he will know, extensive research by the Forestry Commission and other organisations is currently under way to assess the extent to which afforestation may increase acidification and to measure the effectiveness of various forest management techniques, including liming, in combating surface
78
water acidification. The Forestry Commission has recently published guidelines, prepared with the assistance of the water industry, on the practices to be followed when planting and managing forests in the catchments of streams and river systems.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, mentioned multipurpose forestry. The way is now much more open for the pursuit of truly multipurpose forestry. That is specifically encouraged by the woodland grant scheme and the way in which it recognises a range of management objectives. More planting is now taking place down the hill on better land, with the use of a wider variety of trees, including broadleaves. The concept of urban and community forests has been well and truly launched with the central Scotland woodland project, with proposals to create three urban forests in England —in Tyneside, south Staffordshire and east London —with more to follow and with the exciting concept of a major new Midlands forest. We must never forget the importance of growing trees to produce timber, but bringing more of the trees closer to the people will offer a wide range of benefits, not the least of which will be an improvement to the environment in which many people live.
The noble Duke also mentioned indicative forestry strategies. The concept has been introduced in Scotland and is to be welcomed. The first strategy has been prepared by Strathclyde region. Others are in preparation. They should be helpful to all concerned, including potential forestry investors, although I should underline the fact that they are indicative and do not amount to planning control of forestry by the back door. We shall also be looking at the position in England and Wales. However, the need for a strategy depends on the likely level of forestry activity in an area. There is no point in drawing up a strategy if little planting is likely to take place.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to a drop in planting and the woodland grants scheme not having proved successful. Inevitably the phasing out of tax reliefs has seen the withdrawal from the scene of those who were investing in forestry simply in order to obtain tax benefits. As was equally expected, we have seen a drop in the level of planting as the industry has been adapting itself to the new system of support, but there is no reason why that drop should be other than temporary. The withdrawal of tax relief was accompanied by the introduction of the woodland grants scheme, offering much higher levels of grant and allowing for a wide range of management objectives in order to encourage multi-purpose woodland management.
While timber production will continue to be one of the objectives, it will not necessarily be the principal objective. It could, for example, be to create a woodland which makes a positive contribution to the landscape and is designed to create a diversity of wildlife habitats.
Applications for new planting under the woodland grants scheme have been coming in at the rate of some 3,000 hectares a month, which is much the same rate as before the 1988 Budget. The scheme was opened in June 1988 and applications to plant

79
are approaching 70,000 hectares. We do not know how much of that will convert into actual planting. Nonetheless the interest is encouraging.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, made a strong plea for the planting of more conifers to meet future timber needs and to encourage the expansion of timber-using industries. I think that it can be assumed that most planting will continue to be of conifers because they are the fast-growing commercial species and the bulk of industrial demand is for softwoods. The noble Lady rightly drew attention to the great economic value of the maligned sitka spruce. The growing of more conifers need not prevent us from seeking to encourage the planting of more broadleaves at the same time. It is very much a question of achieving the right balance and using the right trees to meet the objectives of those who are planting them and the requirements of the wood-using industries.
My noble friend Lord Burton asked why the Forestry Commission cannot follow the example of the sensitive wildlife management carried out by the Economic Forestry Group at Eskdalemuir. I do not believe that the Forestry Commission has fallen behind in that respect, as my noble friend seems to suggest. Indeed, it is giving a lead in its approach to the landscaping and wildlife management of forests. The commission is actively going forward with the process of restructuring its older forests such as Kielder, which has already been mentioned. Already many of the older plantations have attained established value for wildlife.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, reminded noble Lords that it was government policy to operate what amounted to a ban on large-scale planting of conifers on unimproved land in the English hills. He went on to propose that such a ban should possibly be extended to the hills of Scotland and Wales. However, I do not accept that that would be a sensible approach. The situation in Scotland and Wales is very different from that in England, where the policy was introduced to protect the comparatively small areas of unimproved hill land that remained. There is scope for more planting to take place in the Scottish and Welsh hills without significant loss to the environment. Such planting will be needed if we are to meet our planting aims. The Government's objective is a balanced forestry programme and not one that is confined to the lowlands.
A number of noble Lords expressed concern about the impact of forestry on the environment. I think it is true to say that everyone is in favour of planting trees provided that they are the right trees in the right places. That is a subject which is worthy of a debate on its own. I ask noble Lords to bear with me if I do not go too far down that road today. I believe that it is sufficient for me to say that I have listened carefully to all that has been said during this debate and to assure noble Lords that the Government are fully aware of the importance of afforestation being carried out in ways that are sensitive to the needs of the environment. That has been amply demonstrated by the new woodland
80
grants scheme introduced in 1988, with its clear emphasis on multipurpose woodland management and environmentally sound practices.
Over the past three or four years we have had a continuous and at times rather acrimonious debate, with high media coverage, about afforestation and its impact on the countryside. Perhaps such a debate was inevitable given the fact that forestry represents change and given the heightened public awareness of countryside matters. A number of necessary changes have taken place, however, in the way in which things are done. It is the Government's hope that major conflicts between foresters and conservationists belong to the past. I have heard it said that in many ways foresters and conservationists are natural allies. I believe that to be so. The Government's position on this issue is that in a changing countryside there is a place for an enlarged forestry estate which, with foresight and care, can add to rather than detract from the quality of the environment.
This has been a good debate which has illustrated noble Lords' great understanding of forestry matters. A wide range of issues has been covered. I hope that I have managed to deal with most of them to your Lordships' satisfaction in the time available. Where I have not been able to do so, I shall write to the noble Lords concerned.
It is the Government's policy that forestry in Great Britain should prosper and continue to expand in ways that will bring economic, social and environmental benefits. Your Lordships' advice on this subject is greatly valued. In conclusion, I thank my noble friend Lord Radnor for initiating this debate and congratulate him on his speech, which revealed an enviable breadth of knowledge about forestry.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, we have had a vigorous and extremely knowledgeable debate. It has revealed divisions which perhaps most of us knew existed already. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, on his very vigorous contribution. I hope that he comes among us often as I feel that he will make a doughty debater.
It is late and I shall not pick up any further points. The situation has been dealt with very well except perhaps for two matters. One point which I think is most important was brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie; namely, that forestry is a long-term matter, and governments must treat it as a long-term matter. They have not always done so in the past and it is of great importance.
After hearing my noble friend Lord Strathmore wind up the debate and comment so well on all the matters that were brought before him—and they were many—I must confess that I am still not entirely happy about the situation with the Forestry Commission. I am sure he will understand when I say that I think that the sale of 100,000 hectares in exchange for planting 4,000 hectares a year is not a very good swap.
So far as concerns the environment, I believe that there must be a compromise. I should not go nearly so far as the environmentalists would go. It has been

81
brought out again and again that softwoods are of vital importance to the industry—and it is the industry that we are debating. But I want to catch fish and I take absolutely the point about acidification in Wales and indeed in other parts of England. I want to see birds and I see no reason why I should not do so with a little care. I also want general visual pleasure. But I want an addition to the gross national product. I want employment. I want to smell the sawdust at the end of the day. That is very important indeed. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Ticket Touts
8 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to prevent the exploitation of tourists and of the public by ticket touts.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to have this opportunity tonight to bring this matter of ticket touts before your Lordships' House and to present various points to the Minister for his attention. Ticket touts are not what they were. The image of the casual, cheeky, cloth capped entrepreneur making a little on the side was rot too worrying. Now, the reselling of tickets for many times their face value has become big business, with an estimated turnover of £25 million a year. There is no way for the purchaser of, say, a theatre ticket to differentiate between a reputable or an undesirable place setting itself up to sell such tickets.
No one opposes legitimate business and legitimate profit. However, we must be concerned by the knowledge that there is now criminal involvement, and increasingly so. Forged and stolen tickets are also being sold to unsuspecting buyers. Totally illegally, we see instances of the resale of used tickets, not properly cancelled, bought or collected within a football ground and resold outside to people wanting to get in. Indeed, at the Pilkington game at Twickenham just weeks after the Hillsborough disaster, 3,000 extra people were admitted on that basis. That could have created a great danger. On that occasion the numbers were insufficient to cause danger, but they could have done so.
Corporate entertainment, which is arranged for many sporting fixtures, is sold at one price by the sponsor or arranger of the event and at a quite different price by someone who is making a killing. The money for the officially sold corporate hospitality goes back into the sport to improve standards. In that way it benefits all who wish to take part in the sport. The profit made by other people who have no entitlement to it whatsoever gives no benefit to the sport. It goes directly into those people's pockets. I do not think that anyone believes that he or she is paying VAT, but an element of VAT is included in the original ticket.
Tourists' magazines overseas, in particular in the United States, warn would-be travellers of the high
82
price of London theatre tickets. The warning is based not on the actual theatre ticket price but on the artificially raised price that people pay through touts, as we know them, or scalpers, as they are known in the United States.
Until 1985, theatre tickets could be sold only through the Society of West End Theatres. Then the Office of Fair Trading intervened. There was a case before the Restrictive Practices Court: that opened up the market for anyone to sell theatre tickets. The black market—which is all that one can describe it as—is a problem. I was interested to hear yesterday that Wimbledon has a white market. Anyone who does not want a ticket can legally resell it back through the All England Lawn Tennis Club. That is very desirable because it is making more tickets available for those people who legitimately wish to attend.
We all know of the stories of the "Phantom of the Opera" tickets. Normally they cost £22-50: the going rate is £120 to £160 each. On the famous night of Michael Crawford's finale some tickets changed hands at £2,000 each but I believe that that was an exceptional circumstance. However, last year at Wimbledon tickets with a face value of £35 brought £650. That is quite out of line with the aim of getting as many people to see the tennis as possible at a price that is within people's reach.
I do not intend to make this a very long debate because I believe that the issue is very clear cut. However, when I see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on the list I know without doubt that he will say that there should be an absolutely free market, free for all. That sounds very attractive in theory. But in reality and in the way that the system works now it is not a free market. It is being taken over to too large an extent by a criminal element. Big money has become involved. If there were some system whereby people were licensed to sell tickets they would still be making a profit. It could still be an open market with tickets freely sold. But we would not have tickets being sold and resold for so many times their value.
I should like to refer to a letter that I have from the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, Wimbledon. I love the title. An Australian such as myself simply refers to Wimbledon; that says it all. However, I was interested because the club had points that it felt were very important and should be considered promptly. It believes that there should be legislation in due course in line with that suggested by Lord Justice Taylor for football. I understand that next year it is quite likely that such legislation will be coming forward. If so, the opportunity should be taken to add to it.
The club believes that there should be guidance to the police to co-operate with, and support, any major sporting event organiser who introduces after consultation a self-help scheme designed to invalidate all tickets sold without a licence from the organisers and banning multiple applications. Much can be done in terms of self help. Now that everything has become computerised and bar coded, it should become fairly easy to identify the source of tickets and where they are going, in particular for sporting fixtures. The club would like to see licensing

83
in due course. It is concerned about unofficial corporate hospitality. I have heard from other sources that although official corporate hospitality costs £215, other operators are selling it with lunch for £950. That is vastly different.
However, it has to be appreciated that there is not a free market in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would like. It is not a case of unlimited tickets, however many people wish to go. The tickets are very limited in supply. It is a limited market. By buying up large quantities of tickets and reselling them in this way, people prevent others buying an individual ticket and using it as they wish.
Wimbledon is concerned that the championships are coming into disrepute, in particular in the eyes of the many thousands of visitors some of whom are led to believe that Wimbledon itself gives a degree of acceptance to unofficial corporate hospitality. I very much liked its comment that it would like to see the tickets go to true tennis lovers. As one, I certainly support that. I can remember queuing up years ago for standing room when I first arrived in this country. Wimbledon has a magic: people from all over the world wish to go there.
The club is genuinely concerned about the increasing use of strong arm methods and the theft and forgery of tickets by the criminal element now involved to some extent in this business. It is concerned that such activities will become even more prevalent as the number of tickets available is further reduced following the changes required of the championship to meet the new safety at sports ground requirements. Until I received this letter I had not appreciated that Wimbledon was going to lose space rather than gain space, as other sporting activities are often able to do. Because of the safety requirements there is a loss of revenue and of the number of seats. Presumably the price of the tickets will have to be increased in order to offset that. There is a loss of standing room for 2,000. The club points out that the championships do not attract violence. I am sure that everyone is impressed by the orderliness of those waiting patiently in long queues outside Wimbledon. I hope that the championships never will attract violence.
The club plans to introduce a self-help scheme this year aimed at invalidation of any ticket sold on. It believes that if the police give support to the scheme it could work well. Ryder Cup tickets have been dealt with in the same way, there being a refusal to allow any to be sold on. The scheme was challenged in court and upheld.
Several courses of action can be taken immediately. First, all tickets should have printed on them the face value. A code of practice exists recommending that, but it is not mandatory to print the price on the ticket. If the ticket shows a price of £10 but someone is asking £150, at least it would be purchased with full knowledge and awareness.
The problem affects not only overseas tourists. It is of great concern to everyone in the country who wishes to obtain tickets but cannot. If one knows the price of a ticket one also knows the mark-up that is being asked. At present one can obtain totally different prices from two different theatre agencies.
Secondly, there must be proper cancellation of used tickets. There should be no way in which people can use a ticket to enter an event and then send it out to be re-used. Tickets must be properly cancelled by being stamped, defaced or torn in order that they cannot be re-used.
I should also like to see local authority licensing. This has been effective in the United States. Ticket touts were doing big business in New York. However, when licensing was introduced they were cleared out to New Jersey. When licensing was introduced in New Jersey, they were cleared out to another state. Now they look to Britain and to London as an easy target. They are moving here because we have so little control.
All noble Lords appreciate that the legislative programme is crowded. I believe that it would be appropriate to add such provisions to legislation already being discussed. No one, including myself, wishes to see more legislation than necessary. However, ticket touting is becoming out of hand. It damages the tourist business and often defrauds innocent people who wish to enjoy a sporting event or show. I hope that the Minister will at least assure the House that the matter is under serious consideration. I am sure that many organisations which are worried about the recent developments will be happy to provide the Government with all the evidence that they have collected.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Baroness is to be congratulated upon raising the Question and I support her from this side of the House. There is a mistaken philosophy which, until recently, was popular on her side of the House. Except for a few remaining cases, the notion that the market is the be-all and end-all of everything and can do no wrong is being shed even in government quarters.
Ticket touting is now completely out of hand. Until 1985 the ticket tout was the odd man out and could be regarded as a kind of sporting vagabond making a bit on the side. However, in 1985 the agreement reached between the Society of West End Theatre Managers and the leading ticket agencies was outlawed as being a restrictive practice. That had a disastrous effect not only in relation to the theatre. The view was taken that if that was a restrictive practice there could be no restrictions anywhere. The floodgates were opened not only in the theatre but particularly in sport. The inevitable result was that what had been controlled became totally uncontrolled.
Ticket touting is now an established racket with a turnover of millions of pounds a year. The noble Baroness said that it was £25 million but I believe that that is the minimum. It is one of the many unacceptables faces of capitalism. The rake-off is enormous. A £35 ticket for the men's final at Wimbledon is being sold for £950 including lunch. It is a mark-up of criminal dimensions —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is no such thing I as a free lunch!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, tickets for "Phantom of the Opera" have a top price of £22-50 but regularly sell on the black market for between £150 and £160. That is ridiculous, is it not?
Great damage is being done and tourists are being exploited. When they are sold inferior tickets at inflaled prices they gain a wrong impression about the price of London entertainment. Some of the agencies are verging on criminal behaviour and they defraud clients by selling non-existent or forged tickets. The enormous profits readily available now appear to be attracting robbery and violence to a scene already of doubtful legality. The law must be strengthened, as was recommended by the London Tourist Board.
There must be licensing and the Government can be assured that, if they take such a measure, they will enjoy universal praise, which will be a nice change for them. Such legislation is now widespread in the United States. There the illusion that the market needs no control is confined almost exclusively to the incorrigible Professor Milton Friedman. Perhaps that view is shared by the noble Lord. Lord Monson —we shall see.
Restrictive practices which prevent exploitation, whether of the employee or the consumer, are necessary if capitalism is not to degenerate into unbridled greed and then into crime. Most people are aware of that and I hope that the Question will receive the positive, affirmative and encouraging Answer that it deserves. I am happy to support the noble Baroness and I hope that she will receive the affirmative Answer that she so richly merits.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it was significant that the Question appeared on the Order Paper on a day when there were also two short debates. The first dealt with the chaos prevailing in the market for rented farmland, which led to the virtual drying up of that market, as a result of governmental interference in arrangements freely negotiated between willing lessee and willing lessor. No doubt on the strength of my sitting where my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross normally sits, the noble Baroness twice in the course of her speech attacked my speech with great vigour before I had even begun.
It is true that I believe in the primacy of the market. As my noble friend Lord Marsh said earlier today, the market always wins out in the end. However, I believe in it not for abstract ideological reasons but for pragmatic ones. I hope that when the noble Baroness has heard what I have to say she may agree that there is some merit in some of the points that I make, just as I intend to endorse strongly one particular suggestion of hers.
The noble Baroness asked what plans Her Majesty's Government have to prevent the exploitation —and that is the key word —of tourists and the public by ticket touts. I do not defend the ticket touts who use the strong arm tactics to which the noble Baroness referred. Law abiding ticket touts may be capable of annoying members of the public, at any rate the more hypersensitive among them. However, those touts acting within the law are not
86
capable of exploiting the public except on the very rare occasions when they manage to corner in advance every ticket on the market so that all potential customers have only one source of supply; namely, a tout.
Even in those unusual and, I venture to say, improbable circumstances, it is doubtful that exploitation is taking place because, although the noble Baroness spoke about criminal elements —and they may exist—we are not talking about latter-day Harry Limes peddling penicillin in an up-dated version of the devastated, war-torn Vienna of the late 1940s. We are not talking about a black market in necessities but about a black market in luxuries. Those who are willing to pay excessive prices for tickets on the centre court at Wimbledon, the Cup Final or an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical suffer no serious harm or deprivation. They have the option of switching to another, albeit less popular, show or sporting event or even staying at home and watching television or engaging in some other indoor pursuit.
Always providing that they are acting within the law, the touts fulfil the useful, indeed Thatcherite, function of bringing supply into line with demand —a point made by the honourable Member for Billericay, Mrs. Theresa Gorman. In a sense touts can be compared with jobbers in the City of London, although with one essential difference which understandably irritates people; that is, that whereas the jobbers take risks and accordingly can lose money if they happen to misjudge the market, ticket touts very rarely lose money. As the noble Baroness said, they make a killing. They are not left with unsold tickets on their hands.
Why do they make a killing? Because the wares which they have for sale tend to be grossly underpriced in the first place. If that were not so, the ticket tout would hardly think it worth the risk. One reads—and the figures I have are slightly different from those already quoted this evening—that people are prepared to pay £130 for good stall seats at "Phantom of the Opera" with a face value of £22-50. I think that such people are raving mad, as I think are people who are prepared to pay several hundred pounds for a 20-minute flight on Concorde over the English Channel. But after all, it is their money. If the pleasure they derive from a short trip in Concorde or two or three hours at "Phantom of the Opera" is worth to them a three-digit sum, so be it. It is none of our business.
Surely the solution is to let the initial price of the ticket reflect the demand just as the price of old masters, Impressionists or first, second, third, fourth or fifth growth clarets reflect the ebb and flow of demand, and let a due proportion of the additional profits made by increasing the prices be paid over to the Treasury in corporation tax to the benefit of the rest of us.
This may not be totally germane but conversely let us see prices for an unpopular production —whether stemming from a bad review or otherwise—be sharply dropped to the extent necessary to fill the theatre. For example, let us say £5 for a good stalls seat or 50 pence for the upper circle. That is where I wish to endorse what the noble Baroness suggested as regards printing the price on the face of the ticket.

87
After all, everybody likes a bargain and this would help to shift unwanted tickets. Of course it is also right that those paying over the odds should know what is the face value of the ticket, because the market cannot function effectively without both buyer and seller being fully informed.
Your Lordships may ask whether or not that may benefit unduly corporate customers since companies can entertain clients on expenses at Wimbledon, Wembley and the West End, to the detriment of private individuals. This may well be so. In that case it is up to the government of the day to alter the fiscal system so as to redress the balance in favour of the private individual.
Where there are potentially, say, 2 million people anxious to see a spectacle at which only 100,000 seats will be available over a two-year period, there must be rationing of some sort. There is no alternative. After all, you cannot issue a coupon which gives a person the right to see part of "Phantom of the Opera" between 7.25 and 7.30 p.m. on a Tuesday in September 1994. There must be rationing. Everybody cannot go. There can be rationing by price, or by queuing—in other words by a first come first served system, which can be rather hard on the elderly or the housebound. There can be rationing by lottery, or there could even be rationing, as suggested by the noble Baroness, by identifying, by a means as yet undevised, who is and who is not a true tennis lover. I suggest that ultimately rationing by price is bound to prevail given the temptation to which those first in the queue or successful in a lottery will be subject if the face value of tickets is kept artificially low in relation to the overall demand for those tickets.
Therefore if one wishes to eliminate the unsavoury type of ticket tout one must encourage the promoters to get their prices right in the first place.
8.27 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I apologise to the House because my name is not on the list of speakers. I indicated my desire to speak in this debate but due to an oversight or problem my name was not included.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the subject this evening. I wholeheartedly support everything she said. I should like slightly to widen the subject matter to include a problem which is strongly allied to this; that is, taxi touts. Those people are not licensed Hackney drivers but are private hire drivers who station themselves outside our mainline railway stations and airports. In collusion with hotel staff they carry on their activities in selling tickets to the unsuspecting overseas tourist or indeed a member of the general public.
That lamentable practice completes the evening for an innocent person who is out for an evening's entertainment in London. He is subjected to a rip-off operation throughout the evening. Those members of the hotel staff who are in collusion with the taxi drivers then take their share of the ill-gotten gains. I do not profess to have an answer to the problem except perhaps to offer a suggestion that the activities
88
of those people be posted on a suitably sized notice prominently displayed in West End hotels and theatres to warn people of that activity. That may just have a warning effect.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, speaking almost at the end of this Unstarred Question it is perhaps difficult to avoid repeating what has already been said but I shall try to do so in so far as is possible. I should like, first, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing the debate and deciding that this was the subject she wished to discuss on this occasion. As one who has long been involved with the work of the London Tourist Board it gives me particular pleasure that she should raise the subject this evening.
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords pointed to bad examples of touting, and it would certainly be possible to add to what they have said this evening. However, before doing so I should like to say a word with regard to the needs and desires of tourists generally and not specifically overseas tourists. When tourists visit a city they want value for money; they want to see a clean city and do not want to feel that they have been ripped off. Those are some of the things that they hope will accompany their visit to a particular city.
This particular problem was first brought to my attention rather vividly when I attended a meeting of the American Bar Association in Chicago some years ago. Members of the American Bar were due to visit London the following year and great efforts were made on that occasion to sign people up for their visit. I recall that there were lots of forms to be filled out by Americans for tickets for West End theatre seats. We noticed that the price was expressed in dollars, but when we started to work the prices out we realised that they were around three times the price of the sterling value of a theatre ticket at that time.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on it. He said "sterling value" but he meant "sterling price". Value and price are two different things, are they not?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes I will say "sterling price". However, the point is that that was more than just a booking fee, which in a sense every visitor expects to be added to the price of his ticket. A booking fee may be 20, 30 or even 40 per cent. but not several times the price of the original ticket.
Major and popular events are subject to monopoly supply—this may already have been said. There is not an expandable supply. As we know and as the noble Baroness pointed out, the needs of safety led to a decrease in supply at certain sports stadiums and for all I know in certain theatres.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that law-abiding ticket touts were not capable of exploiting the market because people could go elsewhere. However, they exploit the market for their personal benefit and not for the benefit of the

89
industry as a whole. Very often they also escape paying tax.
Noble Lords referred to particular aspects of ticket touting. I fear that it is something which appears to affect almost every quarter of the entertainment business. I have a quotation which has not been mentioned this evening so perhaps I may read it. It concerns rugby football. In the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Journal, and repeated in many other newspapers, Dudley Wood, secretary of the rugby union, said:
"Already, we cannot send tickets out for our internationals through the post. We have to use private vans. The police do not have adequate powers to combat what is a growing industry, a criminal industry.
In Scotland at the weekend police were able to arrest touts because they did not have a trading licence".
The Daily Express said:
"Wood said the law was different in Scotland and a police spokesman told him that six touts, who had £16,000 on them, were arrested at Murrayfield on Saturday".
That related to the recent match at the end of March. It would appear therefore that the law in Scotland is slightly tighter and possibly easier to administer than this area of law in England, because that could never have been achieved on this side of the Border. The noble Baroness asked for licensing to be considered. If we brought our law more in line with Scotland we may move some way in that direction.
The other matter referred to was the problem of unofficial corporate hospitality —that is where a tent or temporary building is erected outside a site and people are provided with a package at some great price. Noble Lords quoted such large prices as £950 for lunch, a ticket and hospitality. The real iniquity of such a scheme is that those operations probably go through without tax being charged or paid but the profit from the operations goes into private hands, whereas the profit from official operations goes back into the industry. By allowing that unofficial hospitality one is depriving the industry of some of its much-needed funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, spoke of crime syndicates in New York being replaced by the judicious introduction of licensing. I only hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to promise that the Government will seriously consider the introduction of a licensing system so that anybody found selling a ticket could be asked to produce a licence in the same way as any street trader when selling his wares can be asked to produce a licence to show that he has the right to sell those wares.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but is he suggesting that someone who wants to sell their ticket and advertises in The Times should also need a licence?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, that is a very interesting question. One often sees in The Times individual tickets advertised by people who wish to sell them. He is suggesting that a way round a licensing system may be found if people are able to advertise through the press on that basis. I think that that is something which should be looked at. If
90
it is a way round a licensing law, then it is not something which is acceptable.
The licensing system we need should be administered by the local authority under regulations laid down by the Secretary of State. That is possibly the only way in which we will be able to tackle this problem. If when the Minister replies he feels that the Government are not in a position to move to a licensing system, I hope that what the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have said this evening will make him feel that his department should hold an inquiry into the matter.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it has been a pleasure and of great interest to listen to the views of all who have spoken tonight, particularly so because noble Lords obviously have an enormous amount of experience on this issue and also a certain strength of feeling and variety as to how we should go ahead. However, I feel that the subject is essentially a complex one and I should like to deal with all the points that have been made, or at least as many as possible.
First, it is most important to decide exactly what the law currently states. Ticket touting—that is, as normally understood, the sale of numbers of tickets for an event at more than the set price for commercial gain—is not an offence as such. However, there are some aspects of current legislation which have a bearing on the matter. Under the Consumer Protection Act, a code of practice for traders on price indications was introduced in March 1989. This recommends that those selling tickets should show the face value of the ticket so that customers can ascertain the profit margin and at that stage decide whether they are getting value for money. Although contravention of this advice is not an offence in itself, it is factor that could be taken into account in any proceedings deciding whether an offence had been committed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned the law in Scotland. I know that the noble Lord has a great deal of experience and knowledge of this subject as he was president of the London Tourist Board. Perhaps I may explain more fully exactly what is the situation in Scotland. Section 55 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 makes it an offence for anyone touting for business (or attempting to buy a ticket) to cause annoyance. The burden of proof for an offence under this Act is high. The injured party must report to a policeman that he has been offended, importuned or insulted by another person. The person who committed the offence is then in breach of the Act if he does not move on, having been told to go by the police. This legislation does not affect the sale of tickets through an advertised address and so it is relevant to only part of the activity of touting. It also has little to do with permits, as the noble Lord suggested it might.
Criminal activity per se, such as acts of violence or fraud, are punishable under the normal existing criminal legislation, as are various acts of disorder or obstruction. My noble friend Lady Gardner referred to stolen or forged tickets and used tickets.

91
The law already acts where there has been theft or forgery. Used tickets are something which the individual sports grounds themselves must take into account and endeavour to stop, as indeed they have been advised to do in the report of Lord Justice Taylor to which I shall refer shortly.
There have been many calls for the Government to legislate further to restrict touting. Unattractive though this activity may be in many respects, there are, however, dangers inherent in restricting what many would see as legitimate commercial activity in perhaps unduly limiting the scope of genuine ticket agencies to operate.
I now refer to the specific issue of football where Lord Justice Taylor has recommended that ticket touting outside football grounds should be made an offence. He makes clear in his report, however, that he considers the case of football to be unique in that he believes that the activities of touts are relevant to the public order problems that have beset football. His recommendations are being considered by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
In general, however, I must say that I believe that the main responsibility for reducing the scope of the ticket tout to operate must lie with the organisers of major sporting and other entertainments. It is the ease with which tickets can find their way on to the black market that leads to many of the difficulties that we have discussed this evening. There are many measures which organisers can take to control the issue of tickets and I know that, on occasions, they attach great importance to doing so as they usually wish to ensure that the people who obtain tickets are the genuine fans who sustain a sport.
I was therefore very interested to hear of the scheme which the PGA used last year to prohibit the resale of tickets at the Ryder Cup. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes referred to the scheme. The PGA and its approved ticket agency issued tickets which were valid only if issued by themselves and successfully obtained an injunction against a company which was advertising tickets. These tickets, by being sold other than through the approved outlet, were thereby invalid and the sellers were potentially defrauding their customers.
I think that that example shows that a legal remedy therefore exists at present for organisers of major events to take action to establish control of these events and ensure that the tickets go to those whom they wish to attend. I understand that the authorities at Wimbledon are looking at the possibility of a similar arrangement for next year's lawn tennis championships. I welcome the fact that the Wimbledon authorities have seen that the solution to the problem, if they feel they have one, lies firmly in their own hands. I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is looking in detail at the PGA scheme and its further implications. I shall certainly convey to him the views that I have heard tonight.
My noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the high price of theatre tickets that are advertised abroad. It was a delight to hear the noble Lord, Lord Monson,
92
intervene with a breath of fresh air. If someone can manage to sell tickets overseas at a price, that is thoroughly enterprising; but I must ask why the West End theatres themselves are not involved in selling tickets overseas and obtaining the price that they want rather than letting private entrepreneurs do it for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, offered me, rather seductively I thought, universal praise if we were to introduce legislation on this matter. I am not certain that legislation would actually work. My noble friend Lady Gardner and noble Lords opposite suggested licensing. I do not believe that licensing would work. It is not a solution. We would have to divide individuals from corporate entities that might be indulging in this operation. It would mean even more work for local authorities which already have difficulties in carrying out their existing duties and I am not sure that it would be entirely fair to those people who legitimately want to set up and sell tickets.
The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, said that there should perhaps be signs in hotels to warn people of taxi and theatre ticket rip-offs. That is, essentially, probably a very good idea if people need to be warned.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that unofficial corporate entertainment deprived industry of its funding. Again, I feel that the solution to the problem —if the industry feels that there is a problem in that money is deing diverted to other sources—is for the industry itself to act and endeavour to provide that the supply of tickets goes to the right kind of people so that they receive the return rather than the middleman.
In all of this discussion I feel that there is one fundamental problem —that is, that ticket touts, or whatever we choose to call them, provide for a demand. There will always be that demand. I carried out a certain amount of research this morning. If I had wanted to see "The Phantom of the Opera" this evening I would have had to pay between £125 and £195 for a ticket. However, at least I had the choice of going this evening and if I did not want to pay I could not go. As it happens, the show has already started and I am still here.
Perhaps I may sound a note of caution to those who seek legislation. The reason why London theatre tickets are so expensive when sold by a third party is their ease of supply, and because of the theatre's popularity. I would not wish to be here answering to a debate, promoted perhaps by the same people, about complaints that visitors were not coming to London because they could not get tickets by legitimate means because they had already been previously sold. That is always a danger of government muddling, if I may borrow the words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
I think the situation that we have at present is essentially a good one. The sports, cultural and entertainment promoters themselves can help solve the problems by being more particular to whom they sell tickets. I suspect that that is the problem in the long term.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would at least consider making a recommendation to his right honourable friend that the provision under the Consumer Protection Act be changed to a regulation so as to give it statutory functions and make it more possible to issue proceedings with a chance of succeeding.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am certainly happy to pass on that request to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I would just make one point about the code of practice and whether it should be made statutory. The recommendation is that the price be put on the face of the ticket. I think that most people already do that. But if a person is willing to spend £100 on a ticket, I suspect that whether the ticket originally cost £10, £15 or £20 is probably irrelevant.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I apologise for getting up again before the noble Lord sits down,
94
but I do not think he answered the point which both the noble Baroness and I made, that if he was not prepared to consider legislation perhaps he might consider an inquiry into the problem.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not really think an inquiry is needed. There has not been a great deal of fuss about this matter. Certainly, neither I, as Minister for Tourism, nor my department has received a single letter from an individual complaining about ticket touts or about being ripped off or exploited. I know the anxieties of the London Tourist Board, but I suspect that the best way to deal with the problem is to talk directly to the promoters and make sure they understand that there may be a problem in the way that they issue tickets.
House adjourned at seven minutes before nine o'clock.

  CYPRUS: TALKS BREAKDOWN
  CYPRUS: TALKS BREAKDOWN
  STRATEGIC DEFENCE DEPLOYMENT BY USA: IMPLICATIONS
  STRATEGIC DEFENCE DEPLOYMENT BY USA: IMPLICATIONS
  ABM DEFENCE SYSTEMS: POLICY
  ABM DEFENCE SYSTEMS: POLICY
  NITRATES: PILOT SCHEME
  NITRATES: PILOT SCHEME
  CROWN ESTATE PAVING COMMISSIONERS
  CROWN ESTATE PAVING COMMISSIONERS
  CGT INDEXATION RELIEF WITHDRAWAL
  CGT INDEXATION RELIEF WITHDRAWAL
  ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN ARTS FESTIVALS: COSTS
  ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN ARTS FESTIVALS: COSTS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE/DOMESTIC RATE COMPARISON
  COMMUNITY CHARGE/DOMESTIC RATE COMPARISON
  BUSINESS RATE AND UBR COMPARISONS
  BUSINESS RATE AND UBR COMPARISONS
  HONG KONG: BALANCE OF TRADE WITH UK
  HONG KONG: BALANCE OF TRADE WITH UK
  PRISONERS' UNOCCUPIED HOMES: COMMUNITY CHARGE
  PRISONERS' UNOCCUPIED HOMES: COMMUNITY CHARGE
  PRISONERS' UNOCCUPIED HOMES: RATES
  PRISONERS' UNOCCUPIED HOMES: RATES
  STAMPS WITHOUT VALUE INDICATOR
  STAMPS WITHOUT VALUE INDICATOR
  COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: TRADE WITH UK
  COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: TRADE WITH UK