Sitting of 23 April 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I entered the Members' Post Office this morning at 9 am, 50 per cent. of its floor space was taken up with cardboard boxes about the size of a large shoe box. Every hon. Member has today been mailed a plastic model of a foetus. Those grotesque models have been opened on behalf of hon. Members by our secretaries and research assistants, most of whom are female and some of whom have recently suffered miscarriages and other problems related to child bearing.
The packages have been a grossly offensive and distasteful demonstration. I hope that you will deprecate it, Mr. Speaker, and also give instructions to the Members' Post Office that, should it happen again, all such disgusting models should be sent back.
Mr. Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with the matter.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow me to say something first.
I have received numerous complaints about that matter. I have also received a letter from the Assistant Serjeant at Arms informing me that a large number of parcels were delivered, but they were all stamped, so they had to be taken in. Some of them were accepted by hon. Members and some were not and those will be sent back
2
to the sender. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Leader of the House, as Chairman of the Services Committee, to look into the matter and consider what action may be necessary in future if this sort of thing happens again.
Mr. Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is the legitimate right of citizens of this country to lobby their Members of Parliament, and their rights must be upheld as well. In comparison with what actually happens to the unborn child, the medical model——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of order concerned with the merits of the matter, which can be debated later. What I have said is a fact. I have received a great many complaints from hon. Members and from their secretaries.

PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 3) BILL [Lords]
      HAPPISBURGH LIGHTHOUSE BILL [ Lords]
      Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Avonmouth Relief Road
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the conclusions of the public consultation exercise over the Avonmouth relief road.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): I hope to be in a position to announce the preferred scheme in the late spring or early summer of this year.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, which shows the speed of action and consideration that

    3
    Ministers are giving to that much needed project in my constituency. When my hon. Friend announces the preferred scheme, will he take the opportunity to announce also that the much disliked flyover that was attached to the original scheme has now been finally dropped?
    Mr. Atkins: I must reiterate how strongly we feel about the pressure that has been put on us by my hon. Friend, who does not cease to push the case for that relief road in his constituency. I cannot give him an absolute assurance at this stage, but certainly his views will weigh heavily with me and my inclination at the moment is that the flyover will not be necessary at the controversial place about which my hon. Friend is so concerned.
    Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend will be aware that many planning and investment proposals await his decision. Is he further aware that many of my constituents will be pleased to hear that his Department is dealing with the matter with considerable speed?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern. He, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), has pressed us on many occasions. He and his constituents will be pleased that we are pressing ahead as fast as we can.

    Motorway Lighting
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the provision of lighting for the whole of Britain's motorway network.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): We receive representations from time to time on lighting the motorway network. These have included the National Chamber of Trade, a small number of police authorities and Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. Some have come direct from members of the public. We also receive representations against the further lighting of the motorway network from other interested parties.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as it is widely accepted that the lighting of motorways reduces accidents, the capital cost of extending lighting to the whole of the motorway system, which is about £170 million, and the annual running costs of more than £12 million, are cheap at the price considering the cost to the National Health Service of treating accident victims? If my right hon. Friend cannot come forward with a comprehensive plan, will he propose a priority plan based on the worst motorway accident areas?
    Mr Parkinson: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. At the moment we are targeting lighting on areas where major accidents occur. At present, about a quarter of the system is lit. We examine very carefully whether we should install lighting, for instance, on the M25 where there was a bad accident. The objectors are environmentalists who claim that in certain areas motorway lighting is intrusive and destroys the environment.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Secretary of State agree that the M6 has the worst black holes in terms of lighting? Does he
    4
    further agree that lighting the whole motorway system is a priority and that the M1 lighting, which is white, should be changed to sodium lighting?
    Mr. Parkinson: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. If he will let me know about particular sections of the M6 that are dangerous and that do not appear to receive the right priority, I shall certainly consider them.
    Mr. Waller: Before rushing into the wholesale lighting of motorways, which are among the safest roads in the country, will my right hon. Friend consider whether the not inconsiderable sum involved might be better spent on local traffic management schemes, which have been shown to have a good effect in reducing casualties?
    Mr. Parkinson: It is precisely that balance that we are trying to strike, of using the money to the best possible advantage, so that we deal with the problem areas on motorways. However, not all the problem areas are on the motorways.

    Highway Code
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to revise the highway code; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkins: Aspects of the highway code are dated and need improvement. I am considering at present how that may be done.
    Mr. MacKay: When my right hon. Friend revises the highway code, will he carefully consider whether motorway driving could be improved if it is emphasised to drivers that they should drive in the inside lane and that the middle and outside lanes are purely overtaking lanes, and that rear fog lights are supposed to be on when there is fog and not at other times, when they cause great danger and pile-ups?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, with his usual percipience, has addressed the two problems that cause most concern. I join him in urging people to stop using fog lights wrongly. The points that he raised about other matters are being given considerable attention. I should be interested to hear from anyone who believes that aspects of the highway code are outdated. We shall endeavour to take such advice into consideration when we carry out the review.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When the highway code is revised, will the Minister consider inserting a section that advises motorists of the things that they should not do inside their cars? There are many things, of course, but I was thinking specifically of the ludicrous grinning cats that are stuck to car side windows and the dice and football boots that hang down over rear-view mirrors and must obstruct a driver's view, thus making driving much more dangerous.
    Mr. Corbyn: And car phones.
    Mr. Banks: And car phones, as my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Atkins: I share with the hon. Gentleman an obsessive hatred of dingle-dangles in the back windows of cars as they are distracting and, more important, they are unsafe.
    Mr. Higgins: May I applaud my hon. Friend's statement and suggest that in revising the highway code, he should clarify the position with regard to priority on roundabouts, making it clear that those already on roundabouts have priority over other traffic not on the roundabout even when it is approaching from the right of the car on the roundabout?
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that as it is one of many aspects that I believe to be outdated; and clearly we shall have to look at it closely.
    Mr. Corbyn: When the Minister is revising the highway code, will he look into the serious problem of drivers with car phones who drive while using the phone, as that causes danger to other road users? It is dangerously distracting and causes accidents, yet the police do not seem keen on chasing and prosecuting such offenders. Will the Minister introduce regulations to prevent that dangerous practice?
    Mr. Atkins: It is already an offence to drive a car while using the phone. It is a matter for the police to enforce. I take the opportunity provided by the hon Gentleman's supplementary question to remind people that it is wrong to use the phone while driving, particularly when devices can be fitted into cars so that the driver can have a conversation while keeping both hands on the wheel. It is an offence and I want it stopped, but it is up to the police to enforce the law.

    London City Airport
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the traffic in terms of movements and passengers carried through London City airport in the last year for which figures are available.
    The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The Civil Aviation Authority tells me that in 1989 there were 11,789 air transport movements, and 216,000 terminal passengers at London City airport.
    Mr. Colvin: Has my hon. Friend seen that London City Airways, Brymon Airways and Air France have all recently announced additional services from London City airport to the continent? Does he share their confidence in the future of London City airport as an airport capable of handling up to 1·5 million passengers a year, taking a great deal of pressure off the south-east, securing the jobs of 500 workers in Newham and producing a shop window for the world's most environmentally friendly airliner, the BAe 146? Will he give us a hint on whether he is in favour of London City airport?
    Mr. McLoughlin: London City airport is an exciting private initiative funded totally by the private sector. It could play an important role in providing services for passengers and business people, particularly in the light of 1992 and all the opportunities that the single market will provide.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister look into some of the statistics that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin)? Is he aware that, in respect of the hon. Gentleman's claim that there is scope for 500 employees from the London borough of Newham, unfortunately a number of people have been made redundant at the airport recently, and the rosy picture that
    6
    the hon. Gentleman paints awaits a public inquiry, so we should await the results of that inquiry before reaching a conclusion?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, there is a public inquiry. However, most areas are pleased when airports are built because of the considerable employment that they bring. Everywhere where there are airports there are considerable developments and opportunities for local people and the travelling public.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that in order to deal with increased traffic movements in the south-east, a decision needs to be taken soon about a fifth terminal at Heathrow?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I note my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister agree that London City airport would have been better planned as part of Britain's transport infrastructure rather than being left to the private sector?
    Mr. McLoughlin: No.
    Mr. Snape: Good. I am glad that the Minister does not confirm that. Will he then confirm that the taxpayer will be expected to pick up the bill for the much needed infrastructure that should have been there in the first place?
    Mr. McLoughlin: We know that if ever the Opposition were in government, the taxpayer would constantly pick up the bill because the Opposition would seek vengeance on the private sector.

    A13, Essex
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what immediate plans he has to improve the A13 in Essex.
    Mr. Atkins: To the east of the M25, the trunk road section was improved in 1981 and is being further improved to accommodate the new Lakeside shopping centre. To the west of the M25, draft orders were published last month for a new dual three-lane road to Wennington.
    Mr. Speaker: Is this right? The question refers to the A13 in Essex.
    Mr. Atkins: Yes.
    Mrs. Gorman: On behalf of my constituents I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely good news. May I persuade him in his busy schedule to take a ride down that road with me—[Interruption.] and some of my colleagues one evening. We could show him that, although improvements have been made, at some of the busiest areas the traffic mostly stands still because the worst congestion is at either end of those improvements, particularly where the Blackwall tunnel crosses the A13. At night a journey from this building of under five miles can take three hours because of the congestion. Will he give an assurance that work on the two ends of the road will also begin in the near future?
    Hon. Members: Be careful what you do in cars.
    Mr. Atkins: I have, indeed, travelled that road on numerous occasions. I am fully aware of the anxieties that my hon. Friend has expressed. I am always happy to visit

    7
    her constituency and those of my hon. Friends to see the problems for myself. But, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and others said earlier, I must be careful what I do in cars with anyone.
    Mr. Squire: In welcoming the draft orders published by my hon. Friend recently, may I congratulate him on moving the line of the A13 further south, in response to representations made to his Department? Does he agree that with or without the construction of Universal city in my constituency, the need for construction of the A13 relief road is immediate? It cannot come too quickly for people in my constituency or for those who use the road every day.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend presses his case persuasively. I am aware of anxieties about the new development there. I shall continue to react as favourably as possible to his anxieties and those of his constituents.

    British Rail
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he proposes to discuss.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he proposes to discuss.
    Mr. Parkinson: I plan to meet the chairman of British Rail on Wednesday 25 April when we will discuss a variety of railway issues.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. When he meets the chairman of British Rail, will he make it clear that BR's proposals to continue as a monopoly after privatisation are unacceptable to many Conservative Members? We seek a system whereby there would be some form of competition from a track authority so that others besides British Rail had an opportunity to provide a vital service to the public.
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, the structure of a possibly privatised British Rail is under consideration. I shall take into account what he says.
    Sir Peter Emery: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss with him the improvements necessary on a number of lines, particularly that from the southern railway down to Exeter, and the need for electrification of that line? If the whole of the track cannot be doubled, at least there should be more passing places in the area between Salisbury and Exeter.
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, there will be a great deal of investment in British Rail over the next three years. It is part of a programme of capital investment that has been building up. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the chairman.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman the sense of shame felt by many people throughout Britain at the contrast between this Government's handling of the channel tunnel and that of the French Government? When will the Government recognise that the channel tunnel is a strategic national project and that we want the fastest possible link between the continent and the north of Scotland with the minimum
    8
    of damage to the amenities of residents near the route? Is he aware that that can be done within the Government sector, funded and controlled by the Government?
    Mr. Parkinson: The Government learnt a lesson from publicly funded civil engineering projects when the Thames flood barrier was built. It was meant to cost £40 million and to be built in four years. It cost £435 million and was built in eight and a half years. The contract had to be renegotiated three times. We are about taxpayers' money, which is why we will not listen to the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman is talking.
    Mr. Gregory: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he impress on him the fact that the Government are supporting British Rail to the greatest amount in real terms in a quarter of a century and that employees in many railway cities, particularly York, are frustrated that they cannot participate in the success of that great industry, although their colleagues in British Rail Engineering and Sealink have already had the benefit of privatisation?
    Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for so typically speaking in support of British Rail while all we get from the Opposition is grossly ill-informed criticism. We have a huge investment programme and are backing British Rail to an extent that no previous Labour Government did. The problem is that we have a couple of innumerate Opposition Front-Bench Members who do not understand the figures.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Secretary of State aware that the annual report of Eurotunnel, published today, which I hope he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail, has shown that costs have almost doubled in three to four years and that the requirement that it should be privately financed and organised has meant that it has inadequate management and finance? Will he assure the chairman of British Rail that the Eurorail link will not face the same restrictions of that ideological requirement, that is, private control and private finance?
    Mr. Parkinson: My earlier point, which the hon. Gentleman once again did not understand, is that if huge projects are carried out in the public sector, it is a recipe for gigantic cost overruns. If this was in the public sector we should be talking about costs, not doubling, but trebling or quadrupling. The sooner he realises that public sector——
    Mr. Prescott: Costs have doubled in three years.
    Mr. Parkinson: I pointed out that the cost of the Thames barrier multiplied 10 times in eight years.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail on Wednesday 25 April, will he impress on him the importance of a channel tunnel rail link that serves the whole United Kingdom, not one that terminates at King's Cross and serves only the development of the King's Cross site?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am afraid that my hon. Friend will not find a great deal of support for that proposal from the whole Opposition. We get many representations from northern Members who say that if the terminus were transferred to Stratford, it would be unattractive to those from the north and that King's Cross is the chosen site. That is partially, indeed only slightly, to do with the

    9
    redevelopment of King's Cross and massively to do with connecting the whole United Kingdom to the channel tunnel.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you take my question separately as the Department of Transport informed me only two minutes before I came into the Chamber that it was to be taken together with question No. 7?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot do that.
    Mr. Foulkes: Why not?
    Mr. Speaker: Because the hon. Gentleman had a letter from the Department. I have no idea when it was posted, but I would expect any hon. Member who has a question on the Order Paper to be present for Question time from the beginning.

    ScotRail
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Mr. Cyril Bleasdale, of ScotRail, about the electrification of the Glasgow-Falkirk-Linlithgow-Edinburgh line and the southern routes involving Mid-Calder, Carstairs, Fauldhouse and Shotts.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I discussed the various proposals for electrification of lines between Edinburgh and Glasgow with the director of ScotRail during my visit to those cities on 14 March.
    Mr. Dalyell: As I have an all-too-clear understanding of the finances involved and particularly of the difficulties of the Queen Street tunnel, may I ask whether there can at least be a preliminary discussion on the electrification of the Edinburgh-Glasgow line and the various merits of the routes when the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail on 25 April? May we have that undertaking for Wednesday's meeting?
    Mr. Portillo: As I said in my substantive reply, I discussed the matter on 14 March and I expect to discuss it again when I visit Scotland in May. The hon. Gentleman will know that the electrification of the line between Glasgow and Edinburgh via Carstairs is already approved and a £12·5 million project is under way. The hon. Gentleman will also know that there will be a new service with class 158 vehicles from Glasgow Queen Street via Falkirk and Linlithgow to Edinburgh. I believe that British Rail may be considering whether the remaining sections on the Shotts line should be electrified—whether that would present a case for investment. No doubt I shall discuss those matters in May.

    Oil Discharges
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase monitoring of oil discharges into United Kingdom seas.
    Mr. McLoughlin: A second remote sensing aircraft has been added to the marine pollution control unit's resources, and the regular airborne surveillance patrols of United Kingdom waters to deter ships making illegal discharges of oil are being increased by more than 60 per cent. with effect from the beginning of this month.
    Mr. Brazier: That is welcome news and another example of the Government taking concrete action. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that monitoring will not go the way of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, whose water provisions were introduced by the previous Labour Government but never implemented?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for that information. The marine pollution control unit is one of many means by which the Government monitor discharges into the sea. The objectives of the Department of Transport are supplemented by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the surveillance of our coastal waters amounts to 6,100 hours a year. We also rely on pilots and people using the seas to report any discharges that they come across.
    Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give the latest estimate for the incidence of oil-related traffic passing through the Minch? Will he inform us of the number of spillages in that waterway and the surrounding seas? I remind him that it is an extremely important area for west coast fishermen. Is his Department drawing up a plan for designated safe anchorages for stricken tankers?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The consistent reduction in the amount of oil spillages round our coastline is due mainly to the determined attitude of the Department to make ship owners and masters aware that we shall not tolerate such discharges. In 1979 there were 530 incidents, but the latest figures—for 1988—show a total of 280.
    Mr. Prescott: Has the Minister heard about the loss in the Solent of a Greek vessel which is discharging oil and dead Greek seamen? Is the Department assisting in the removal of that wreck and perhaps in the recovery of the bodies?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Any accident that has been reported and any slicks that occur warrant action by the marine pollution control unit. I shall certainly investigate the accident to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention.

    A6(M) Bypass
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether a starting date for the A6(M) bypass has been fixed.
    Mr. Atkins: Time will be needed for design work, supplementary orders and compulsory purchase orders. A second public inquiry is likely and then construction could start by the end of 1992.
    Mr. Favell: Can it be true that there will be yet another public inquiry on this much-needed road to relieve probably the greatest traffic congestion in the north-west? Why do we spend so long taking evidence from people objecting to a motorway rather than simply getting on with it? The people in Stockport will go bananas at this news.
    Mr. Atkins: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's views. I know that he has consistently pressed for the road to be built as a matter of urgency and I understand his worry. As long as there are objections,

    11
    statutory procedures require a public inquiry. But I understand my hon. Friend's concern and I shall convey it to those who are in a position to do something about it.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that it is absolutely crazy to have another public inquiry now, as the Department has already constructed a massive interchange in my constituency to link up with the proposed road? How can an inquiry consider the objective case for a different route when the Department has already built the interchange?
    Mr. Atkins: There have been several amendments to the original plans which have produced objections. As long as there are objections, a public inquiry is required. As I said, I have considerable sympathy with the views, represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the time it takes to have an inquiry and build a road. However, we are where we are, and I must obey the letter of the law.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the constituents of Stockport are not the only ones who will go bananas if there is no assistance in relation to the M6? Is he aware that the prosperity of the north-west has grown so substantially that road congestion is extremely serious, not least in Lancashire and Morecambe, and that because of the dilatoriness of the county council, which refuses to make the M6 link a priority, matters are becoming worse? Will he ensure that that essential link is provided as early as possible, despite Lancashire county council?
    Mr. Atkins: I always listen carefully to what my Member of Parliament has to say about the M6, particularly as I know the road well. I am cautious about making comments about motorway junctions that affect my constituency, because I am in a slightly difficult position as Minister for Roads and Traffic. My hon. Friend's general points about the M6 are well taken and I shall do all that I can to ensure that we are not delayed by the unnecessary tardiness of Lancashire county council.

    Severn Crossing
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had recent discussions with county councils in south Wales concerning the second Severn crossing.
    Mr. Portillo: The Government's recent announcement of a second Severn bridge has been widely welcomed by people on both sides of the Severn, and officials of this Department and at the Welsh Office are in regular contact with the county councils involved.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that the county councils will require some clarification of the respective bids? On the information supplied to me about tolling, finance and the concession period, there seems to be confusion, not only among the tenderers but in the Department. Why should this difficulty have arisen? Can the Minister throw any light on it?
    Mr. Portillo: The decision was clear cut; there was clear daylight between the bids received. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is thinking about the proposal by the Trafalgar House consortium for a £1 car toll. That also involved a £4 toll for heavy goods vehicles, which the hon. Gentleman would not have welcomed, and a 50-year concession
    12
    period—well over double the period expected by the winning bid. It was a non-conforming bid which we did not accept. The bid that we accepted was superior.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail regarding the funding of the channel tunnel high-speed rail link.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail about the funding of the channel tunnel rail link.
    Mr. Parkinson: Since November last year British Rail has been discussing the proposed channel tunnel high-speed rail link with Eurorail Ltd., with a view to forming a joint venture. The parties have kept me in touch with progress and I am now considering their detailed proposals.
    Mr. Bowden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he take this opportunity to dispel the well-founded rumours in the press that the Government intend to change course and provide public money for the channel tunnel rail link? Will he deny that?
    Mr. Parkinson: It would be illegal for the Government to provide money for the Channel tunnel rail link. That is expressly forbidden by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
    Mr. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his position? I take a different line from my colleague. Is not this a great national project which will bring enormous benefit to the north and north-west? Should not it be managed and financed by a partnership involving Government, business and British Rail? Would not that be in the country's long-term interest?
    Mr. Parkinson: The proposed project would be a collaboration between British Rail and the private sector, which have been working together on the finances and have put a detailed proposal to us. We had a meeting with them last Thursday at which we fleshed out their proposals, which we are now carefully considering. I cannot say more than that.
    Mr. Leighton: If the private sector falls down on the job and the Secretary of State has to inject about £1 billion of taxpayers' money, will he ensure that it is not just a straight subsidy but that taxpayers get a share of the equity and, subsequently; a share of the profits?
    Mr. Parkinson: I prefer not to say any more than I already have. The proposals that have been put to us have been worked up over a period of months; they deserve careful consideration and that is what they are getting.
    Ms. Ruddock: Will not the Secretary of State admit, however, that there is no way in which the private sector can fund the environmental projects that will be required for such a rail link in the south-east and in the London area? Will he admit that he will have to find some method—probably through Network SouthEast subsidies—to ensure that the rail link is financed?
    Mr. Parkinson: The position is perfectly clear: under the Channel Tunnel Act we are not allowed to build a subsidised rail line, because the ferries and airlines with which the tunnel will compete are not subsidised. That was the decision of Parliament. We are looking at a proposal that has been put to us, but we must bear the law in mind, even if Opposition Members do not want to.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Official Duties
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many days in the last month he has spent on his official duties.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I spend up to a quarter of my time carrying out my duties as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and as a member of the Government.
    Mr. Winnick: That is most interesting. Why have the fortunes of the Government declined so dramatically since the right hon. Gentleman has held his current position? Could he arrange with the Prime Minister to keep him where he is at least until the next election when, as he admitted on Saturday, the Tories will face their toughest test yet?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman asked almost exactly the same question of my predecessor in 1986. He will know that we were behind in the polls then and we won the subsequent general election. We are behind in the polls now and we shall win the next general election.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of the tenants of the Duchy of Lancaster with whom he deals and on whom he spends a quarter of his time are constituents of mine. Recently I have visited quite a lot of them, and they have the same problem as I do in discovering what the Opposition intend to do about the community charge. Will my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the tenants, write to the Leader of the Opposition asking him what he has in mind?
    Mr. Baker: I have tried, but the Opposition will not reply. The Opposition's campaign for the local government elections is wholly cynical and dishonest. They will not spell out their alternative—their spokesman refused to do so on radio this morning. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who invented the roof tax, knows what the figures are, so why does not he come to the House and tell the country what they would be?

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has had on the poll tax from tenants of the Duchy.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have had no representations from Duchy tenants either for or against the community charge.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do Duchy tenants realise that year one of the poll tax is as nothing compared with the complications and difficulties of year two? Do they realise that 400,000 people in Strathclyde have not paid, and that £101 million is owning? Do they realise that that represents 23 per cent. of the total, and that my own, serious authority has had to
    14
    provide money for self-defence courses in karate and other disciplines for officials who have to deal with the poll tax? Is the Chancellor of the Duchy doing anything to prepare people in the Duchy by providing lessons in karate, kwando or anything else?
    Mr. Baker: That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that self-defence lessons have been offered to all council employees, but are aimed primarily at benefiting social workers.
    Duchy tenants will pay the community charge themselves as they did the rates previously. In 1990–91, the community charge for employees who have been occupying accommodation free of rent and rates will be met by the Duchy. This arrangement will be reviewed next year.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: If my right hon. Friend receives any representations from Duchy tenants will he tell them that they have to pay for the staff employed by Labour-controlled Lancashire county council? Lancashire has a lower population than the county of Hampshire, but it has 11,000 more staff.
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right. The excessive expenditure by Lancashire county council this year is about £123 million. Such excessive expenditure is bound to lead to higher rates or community charges. The level of the community charge in Lancashire is due to the high-spending Labour authorities. The only way in which voters will get a lower community charge is by voting Conservative on 3 May.
    Dr. Cunningham: Why does the Chancellor of the Duchy continue to try to con people in Lancashire and elsewhere? Why does not he look at the report on the study of the poll tax, carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Rating and Valuation Association which shows that it is not overspending by councils that is the root cause of the problem, but the unrealistically low targets set by the Department of the Environment? The study also shows that in Lancashire, as elsewhere, losers outnumber gainers by more than 3:1 except among the 8 per cent. of the population who have the highest incomes, where the gainers outnumber the losers. It shows that families in the third percentage band of income have had increases in their local tax bills of more than £200. The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that he will get the answer to his fluster and bluster on 3 May, when people across the country will reject the poll tax, as they should.
    Mr. Baker: Instead of the hon. Gentleman doing calculations which no one in the House is following, why does not he publish his proposals on the roof tax as it would affect his constituency? We have calculated what it would be there. According to the Halifax building society national house price survey, the average cost of a property in Egremont is £54,000. The roof tax on that would be £697, which means that single occupants would be £7·13 a week worse off. Why not publish the figures?

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Meetings
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what was discussed.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Commission last met on 6 March 1990, when among the subjects discussed were the annual report of the National Audit Office and the report of the Commission to the House.
    Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman answering for the Commission knows better than anyone that he and his Commission have the power to report to the House. Will he confide in the House by telling us whether the Commission has discussed its next report to the House and, if so, what subject it covers?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I cannot anticipate the contents of a report that has not yet been considered by the Commission, but we shall report to the House before the summer recess. Among other things, the report is likely to consider the pay of the staff of the National Audit Office and the appointment of auditors to the office so that we can ensure that its operations are conducted efficiently.
    Mr. Gow: How onerous are the duties that fall upon members of the Public Accounts Commission? Is there a vacancy on the Commission? If so, would not my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) be a most excellent member?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I give way to no one in my admiration of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). There is strong competition for membership of the Commission and I regret to have to inform the House that there are no vacancies at present.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question of how much the members of the Tory Cabinet have benefited from pushing through the poll tax legislation? Will he confirm that the Cabinet benefits to the tune of more than £20,000?
    Sir Peter Hordern: That is an interesting question, but it has nothing to do with the Public Accounts Commission, nor even the Public Accounts Committee, so it is not for me to answer.
    Mr. Conway: If my hon. Friend is examining how public moneys are disbursed, will he consider the allocation of funds to Her Majesty's Opposition to see whether they need extra resources to work out the cost of their roof tax proposals for my constituents?
    Sir Peter Hordern: That is another interesting question, but, again, one which is not a matter for the Public Accounts Commission. However, the Public Accounts Committee may wish to consider it.
    Mr. Dickens: When my hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, will he do what he can to ensure that the Committee discusses in great depth the morality of using public funds to underwrite stupid decisions such as allowing the Strangeways prison riot to continue into a fourth week?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is in his place, will have heard that question. Whether it is one that he will wish to consider is a matter for him.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to allow hon. Members to have a closed circuit television link to the Chamber.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 21 February, when I said that the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House had not so far been persuaded of the case for allowing individual hon. Members to receive in their offices a clean television feed from the Chamber. The Select Committee will, during the next few weeks, be undertaking a full review of the televising experiment and no doubt this is one matter which will be considered.
    Mr. Allen: Is not it nonsense that hon. Members do not have the choice of either a sound link or a televised link from the Chamber—a choice exercised freely in many other countries without detriment either to attendance on the Floor of the House or to understanding of the Chamber by hon. Members?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate, even for the sake of the hon. Member, to describe as nonsense a proposition that has been rejected unanimously by the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, and a proposition for which there has been limited demand, for understandable reasons. For example, the provision of a television feed in many places round the Palace would be distracting. Secondly, some hon. Members think that it would discourage enthusiasm for attendance in the Chamber. Thirdly, it would be expensive. The Select Committee will be looking at the matter during the next few weeks and hon. Members have been invited to represent their views to the Committee between now and then.
    Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if an hon. Member wants to know what is going on in the Chamber, all that he has to do is to walk through the door—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that if he wants to take part in the discussion, all that has to do is stand up and catch Mr. Speaker's eye? [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"]
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The popular reaction shows that it is easier for me to answer yes to the first part of the question than to the second.
    Mr. Grocott: Is not technology overtaking us? It is only a matter of time before cable or satellite will provide a direct feed to anyone who has a television set. Sooner of later, we might as well catch up with the technology and provide a feed to every hon. Member.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is well placed, as a member of the Select Committee, to advance that argument when we consider it in the weeks ahead. We shall see how he gets on.

    Refreshment Tent
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council how much it cost to re-erect the refreshment tent on the Terrace of the House; how long he expects it to remain there before it is struck once more; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I advised my hon. Friend on 5 February, the total cost of dismantling and re-erecting the marquee, including storage charges, will be about £13,500. The marquee will be used until Christmas.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend keep the marquee on the Terrace permanently, so that £13,500 is not wasted every year? When it is there permanently, will he ensure that on St. George's day, today and in the future, the rose of England is on sale to hon. Members, so that more can wear the rose of England on the feast of St. George, as they should?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question arises from the main question. On St. David's day there were many daffodils in the House because Welshmen were well able to provide them for themselves.
    The relevant Committees have considered the marquee and have concluded that it does not make sense to leave it in place throughout the year.
    Mr. Tony Banks: As a drink or a cup of tea on the Terrace is a most desirable occupation, it might deflect hon. Members from taking their places in the Chamber. Will the Leader of the House consider making access to the Terrace easier for members of the public so that they, too, can enjoy the facilities that are available to Members? [Interruption.]
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I get the impression that the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for broadening access is not widely shared by hon. Members.
    Mr. Favell: Does the tent go up and come down to circumvent planning regulations? Is it entirely desirable that the House should be doing that?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. My hon. Friend has quite the wrong suspicion. It is being erected and then brought down to comply with planning regulations.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: As this operation costs such an inordinate amount of money, would not it be possible to leave the marquee in place and to spend the money that would thereby be saved on decent accommodation for the Refreshment Department staff, who are still far too lowly paid and who work in conditions that would not be acceptable elsewhere?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have to tell the hon. Lady, as I have told the House on many occasions, that the pay and conditions of service of Refreshment Department staff, as of others, are intended to be kept in line with those that apply in the rest of the labour market. The issue is to be considered again by the Commission very shortly. We must bear it in mind that the cost of taking down the marquee and re-erecting it would have to be set against the cost of maintaining and repairing it while in situ. It would be difficult to choose between the two bills.

    Banking Services
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Lord President of the Council what consideration he has given to the provision of banking services within the Palace of Westminister.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Longer-term planning for the phase 2 parliamentary building includes consideration of the establishment of banking facilities either in the Palace itself, in the new buildings, or as part of the retail units planned for the area. In the short term, the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee is considering a proposal to establish cash-dispensing machines into the House.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this would be a most convenient facility for hon. Members? Although the Post Office provides a cheque-cashing facility, once in a rare while hon. Members wish to bank money as well.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take my hon. Friend's point. That is why the wider facility is being considered. It is important to press ahead with the provision of cash-dispensing machines in the building at as early a stage as possible, as we hope to do.
    Mr. Skinner: Has the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), put in a bid for Barclays bank to help pay for the £250,000 that he gets for working two days a week for it?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer is fortunate in not being the responsibility of this former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is well able to speak for himself and justify the services that he gives to his present employers.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: In view of recent developments in electronic banking and the like, will my right hon. and learned Friend give some thought to inviting the major banks and building societies to install automatic telling machines in the House?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That raises rather wider questions that might have some application in certain circumstances. I am not prepared to go further than that at this stage.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is not only banking services that Members need in this place? There is a dearth of good shops anywhere in the area for buying simple groceries. We should be concerned about the difficulties faced by the staff and all those who work in this place, apart from the 650 Members. They are a long way from any shops where they can get the necessities of life—[Interruption.] It would be extremely helpful for the staff and Members if some form of simple grocery shop were provided.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Contrary apparently to the view of hon. Members, I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. I think that there is a strong case to be made for extending the facilities of that sort that are available in or near the Palace of Westminster. That is one matter which I have already placed on and shall keep upon the agenda.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    North-east Lancashire
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to visit north-east Lancashire.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I visited eight towns in Lancashire and Cheshire last Wednesday. I have no immediate plans to visit north-east Lancashire.
    Mr. Pike: As one of the architects of the poll tax, were the right hon. Gentleman to visit north-east Lancashire he would find that 80 per cent. of the people are losers. Does
    20
    he accept that many thousands of people in north-east Lancashire cannot afford to pay the poll tax? Does he further accept that the two Lancashire Tory Members of Parliament who are not Ministers are opposed to the poll tax?
    Mr. Baker: The community charge in Burnley is high because of the high-spending activities of Lancashire county council. The hon. Gentleman might like to ask the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the cost of Labour's proposed roof tax in Burnley. If he does not receive a reply, I should be happy to tell him that for a house in Burnley valued at £52,350—which, according to the Halifax building society, is the average for the hon. Gentleman's constituency—a single occupant would be £6·02 a week worse off.

Mr. Paul Ashwell
Mr. Speaker: I have granted a private notice question to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) because it concerns his constituent. It is not in order to raise the wider issue of the sale of prohibited goods to Iraq or anywhere else.
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help the Foreign Office is giving to Mr. Paul Ashwell to release him from the Greek gaol and to assist him to return to the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): Mr. Ashwell has been regularly visited by the British honorary vice-consul in Patras. She has helped him to find legal representation and has provided him with additional food and bedding. She has also arranged for him to make telephone calls to his family. A member of the consular staff of the embassy at Athens will attempt to see him at Patras today.
Naturally, we hope that Mr. Ashwell's case can be dealt with quickly, and we have made that point to the Greek Foreign Ministry. Our embassy in Athens has sought an appointment to discuss Mr. Ashwell's case with the Ministry of Justice. Once Mr. Ashwell is released, our vice-consulate in Patras will help him to make arrangements for his return to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Morris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer in so far as it goes, but it leaves a few questions unanswered. First, why was Mr. Ashwell's bail application, which was made on Sunday or possibly Saturday, refused? Secondly, what evidence was given by United Kingdom representatives, in particular our diplomatic representative and the Customs and Excise representative, to emphasise the innocence of that trucker?
Thirdly, when Mr. Ashwell returned to the United Kingdom over Easter, having secured his load in the harbour in Greece, it appears that he was given clearance by Customs and Excise to return to Greece. Given the furore surrounding the case, why could not the load have been taken over by Customs and Excise in Greece, rather than my poor constituent having to return to Greece—apparently being used as a scapegoat for the whole of this exercise? Finally, why was my constituent told that any arrest that might take place would be a mere technicality?
Mr. Ashwell is a young, innocent trucker with a young family. He was doing a normal commercial job. If EC matters mean anything to this House, the two Governments should make it very clear that such an innocent party should be returned to the United Kingdom immediately.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Waldegrave: The House has shown today that it sympathises with my hon. Friend, as I do. My information is that my hon. Friend's constituent was advised by his lawyer not to apply for bail at this time, not that bail was refused. I will have that information checked, but my understanding is that Mr. Ashwell was advised by his lawyer not to go for bail yet, but that he should do so when he has the best chance of being granted it.
22
As to Mr. Ashwell's innocence, Dunn of the Customs and Excise investigation service went to Patras and told the magistrate that, in his view, the driver did not knowingly commit any offence. I associate myself with his remarks.
There is no question of Mr. Ashwell having been encouraged to return to Greece. It is just bad luck that he was there when the load was stopped.
As for a technicality, we must respect Greek law. Greece is a law-abiding country and a fellow member of the European Community. It is an offence there to import armaments illegally, and the Greeks must answer to their own courts as to whether or not Mr. Ashwell committed an offence. Our own Customs and Excise investigators do not believe that he did so knowingly.
Sir David Steel: Does not the matter go further? It is not just a question of respecting Greek law. Does the Minister not agree that, if Mr. Ashwell had asked the British Government if it was all right to return to Greece, he would have been told, "Yes"? That was the answer given throughout. In view of that, do not the British Government have a particular responsibility—more so than usual—to act directly with the Greek Government to help Mr. Ashwell to obtain his freedom as soon as possible—even if it means sending the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to Greece to act as proxy for him?
Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that the consular service would exercise its full energies on behalf of any British citizen finding himself in a similar position. The service is certainly working as hard as it can on Mr. Ashwell's behalf. I reiterate that our own Customs and Excise has told the Greek authorities that it does not believe that Mr. Ashwell is guilty of any offence. Nevertheless, the Greeks have a legal procedure, as we do, and they must observe it.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister make it clear to the Greek Government that no charges of any kind have been preferred against anyone in this country in respect of the gun in question? Furthermore, the House has not been presented with any proof that the transported items are in any way connected with armaments.
Mr. Waldegrave: On my hon. Friend's latter point, there is little doubt that the load that Mr. Ashwell was unknowingly carrying was part of an armament. Whether or not Mr. Ashwell committed an offence in Greece is a matter for the Greeks courts. As I reminded the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), British Customs and Excise informed the Greek authorities that its view is that Mr. Ashwell did not knowingly commit any offence.
Mr. David Winnick: Why is it not apparent to the Greek authorities that Mr. Ashwell is the most innocent part in this whole murky affair? He certainly cannot be held responsible for all the lies, deceit and evasion that has come from Whitehall Departments over the past 10 days. The Greek authorities should immediately release Mr. Ashwell.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his latter remarks. If he will specify which lies he is talking about, he would then have to answer for his accusations.

23
As I said, Mr. Stephen Dunn of Customs and Excise made it clear that that authority believes that Mr. Ashwell is innocent of any offence. However, the Greeks have laws about the importation of armaments. So far, the Greeks have handled the whole matter expeditiously and with sensitivity, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is it not a lamentable feature of the law, in whichever country it operates, that it tends to take a long time to go about its business? Is not that unfortunate lorry driver a notable example of the tiny handful of people who, in the course of any one year, find themselves caught up in the legal procedures of other European states? Can my right hon. Friend give a reassurance that, in discussions in the European Community, attempts will be made to devise a procedure whereby the Government or some other body stand bail for people abroad who are manifestly caught up in the toils of the law unnecessarily, so that they can be brought home?
Mr. Waldegrave: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's remarks, but so far the Greeks have acted quickly and fairly—and I pay tribute to them for doing so.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that quite a long time ago, when we had a decent Government in this country—[Laughter.]—and when Lord Palmerston was in charge, he stated the principle, "Civis Romanus sum"—[Interruption.] When someone was arrested in Greece he got him out very quickly. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not act in a similar way?
Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Member will not expect me to disagree that this country was best governed by the Whigs. He and I may agree on that. On the latter point my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has somewhat fewer battleships to deploy than Lord Palmerston did, and if we were to deploy them I do not think it would be against a free Greece. One of the right lion. Gentleman's greatest heroes helped to achieve freedom in that country and it is not a country that we now regard as one against which we are likely to deploy battleships.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have a situation in which the most innocent people are likely to be and now are involved? Has the time not come for a full inquiry to be held so that it can be made crystal clear that, whoever else is at fault, at least one of the companies and the lorry driver in particular are not involved——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is rather wide of the question.
Mr. Beamont-Dark: It was not very wide.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I have to judge that.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: While respecting your judgment, Mr. Speaker, many people in this country think that one person who should not be a scapegoat is the lorry driver, who is expected to know what he is carrying when no one else, including the Department of Trade and Industry, knew what they were handling.
Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I have made our position clear. The hon. Member should have some understanding for the position of the Greek authorities. They have a law which says that it is illegal to import firearms without a permit, and it appears to them that that may have happened. We are explaining to them, through Mr. Dunn, who is on the spot, the the lorry driver is unlikely to have any guilt at all, and that is the best way to approach the matter.
Mr. George Foulkes: Can the Minister, however, assure us that the British embassy in Athens will be putting pressure on the Greek authorities to recognise Paul Ashwell's unwitting role and his innocence and to release him immediately? In view of the information that we all now have, thanks to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and others, should not some Government Department have been able to alert the company concerned in advance to ensure that Mr. Ashwell did not get into this invidious position in the first place? While we welcome this limited statement, when will we get a full statement on all aspects of that sorry saga, with some Minister accepting responsibility instead of trying to pass the buck to the companies concerned and allowing innocent lorry drivers to carry the can?
Mr. Waldegrave: The substance of the hon. Member's question has been answered and the rhetoric needs no answer.

Points of Order
3.43 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate today, which is timetabled. However, I shall take the points of order.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. This relates to the tabling of questions on the Iraqi gun episode. We have just seen how interdepartmental relationships are inexorably involved in that problem. On Thursday, I tried to table questions, one of which was to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he first informed the Ministry of Defence that there might be——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member knows that he has been in communication with me about that matter, and that I have given him a ruling on it, and he cannot mention it in the Chamber.
Mr. Williams: I understood that that was exactly what I could do.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Williams: Disgraceful.
Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention, in the interests of the rights of Back Benchers, the inherently ridiculous situation that took place today when two spokesmen were timetabled to answer questions at the same time—3.10 pm? Hon. Members had correctly tabled questions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). Questions to the Church Commissioners are important to many people in this country. It is absolutely absurd that questions to two spokesmen should be tabled at the same time. If it is not in your power to deal with the matter, Mr. Speaker, will you ensure that it is referred to the Procedure Committee?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the order of questions, he will see that it is made plain that, on Monday 21 May, questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have precedence over those to the right hon. Member answering for the Church Commissioners. However, I accept that that does not look clear on today's Order Paper, and I will endeavour to ensure that it is made plainer to hon. Members when the Order Paper is next printed.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you an important matter, and I want your advice as to how we should proceed. It is in connection with the reported decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to accept that a child could be transferred, at the parent's wish and on racial grounds, to another school.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, that decision has plunged local education authorities into great uncertainty and it seems to fly in the face of assurances by the former Secretary of State for Education and Science that the Government abhor racial discrimination. If the Secretary of State for Education and Science shows no sign
26
tomorrow that he wants to make a statement on that important matter, will you, despite the time discrepancy, be prepared to consider another application for a private notice question?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I deal with one hon. Member at a time?
Unless the situation has changed, I do not know whether it would be possible for me to do that. The matter was first brought to the attention of the Commission for Racial Equality on 2 April and the Secretary of State for Education and Science replied last week. It is a continuing matter.
Mr. Richard Holt: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there is to be a statement, will you ensure that it is a full statement including, the fact that at the same time as Mrs. Kearney was asking for her child to be moved a Muslim, Mr. Bosnena, asked for his two children to be removed—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If and when the Secretary of State for Education and Science makes a statement, I will certainly consider calling the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jack Straw: Further to the important point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), Mr. Speaker. As the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already made a number of statements outside the House through his press spokespersons about his alleged position in respect of the matter, will you make it clear to the Secretary of State that it is an affront to the House for such statements to be made outside the House and not inside? We need to have the Secretary of State here to clear up the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House will certainly have heard what has been said, and the House knows my strong feeling on the matter. If statements are made on important matters that touch the interests of hon. Members, they should always be made here first.
Mr. Ian Gow: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), Mr. Speaker. Is not the Order Paper clearly defective in stating that questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) will start not later than 3.10 pm, when in fact there were no questions to him at all? May I also submit, Mr. Speaker, that your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is not satisfactory because you said in response to him that, week after week, there might be no opportunity to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. Surely that is not satisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby answered no questions today, and from the ruling that you have just given, Mr. Speaker, it appears that that could easily happen i n future as well.
Mr. Speaker: There are some Mondays on which questions to the right hon. Member answering for the Church Commissioners take precedence, but I cannot accept that the Order Paper today is defective. However it is misleading, and I shall ensure that in future it is made much plainer.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The press is full of the issue. The Minister has made a major point, which tends towards racialism and has been construed as such, and it is vital that he now clears the air and tells us something about the issue as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker: That is as may be. I repeat that I do not deny that it is a matter of considerable controversy in the press. I am sure that what has been said has been heard on the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I gave your office and also the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) notice, relating to what occurred in the House on Friday? In the debate on the Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks Bill) the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes spoke for 93 minutes. His was one of a number of long speeches. It appears that, unlike some hon. Members, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes did not give notice to the answering Minister that he would not be present for the answer to his pretty lengthy speech.
This sort of behaviour does no credit to the House of Commons. That was assented to by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, whose business it was. I must admit that, at 11 o'clock last Friday, I interrupted business to try to raise legitimate questions on the Defence Export Services Organisation secretariat in relation to the Iraqi Government. I took up about three minutes. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there was an attempt to speak for that length of time with the object of not having other business heard. I admit that I was No. 3 on the list, but ten-minute Bills are surely qualitatively as good as those that are drawn by ballot. There really should be no difference. I think that you assent to that Mr. Speaker. In the circumstances, besides the Procedure Committee looking at the matter, could you and the Leader of the House consider what is an absolute abuse of private procedures in the House?
Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I will hear it.
Mr. Leigh: If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is not only an hon. Friend but a personal friend. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy of Friday's Hansard, and I see that everything that my hon. Friend said was perfectly in order and was most interesting. He dealt in some detail with a report from—it is not a household name—Professor Li Wan Po——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we need go into it all over again. On the general position, of course it is not possible for the Chair to put a 10-minute limit on speeches on Report stages of Bills. I confirm that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was mostly in order. I have looked carefully at Hansard, and I see that on one or two occasions the Chair intervened, but the hon. Member was in order. As for being present for winding-up speeches, I hope that the whole House will stick to the long
28
convention that hon. Members remain for winding-up speeches and hear replies to arguments that they and others have made in the House.
Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I apologise to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who was courteous enough to give me notice that he would raise this point of order. Indeed, I was not present for the intervention by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, but I had indicated to him, via the assistant Whip who was on the Treasury Bench, that I would be unable to hear his response.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I have been in charge of some business that is currently before the House. I have been on the receiving end of some fairly long speeches—longer speeches than the one that I made on Friday. I have never made any complaint about any speech of whatever length, even when it has been to the detriment of the Bill with which I have been concerned. I simply urge you to bear in mind the fact that I do not believe that Mr. Deputy Speaker upbraided me for being out of order at any stage. I have listened to speeches on a certain piece of legislation for which I am responsible and the same Mr. Deputy Speaker was required to bring hon. Members to order on many occasions.
Mr. Speaker: Honour is now satisfied.

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Ordered,
That the Report [19 April] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 [Business Committee]:
The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 84.

Division No. 165]

[3.55 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Burt, Alistair

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Butler, Chris

Alton, David

Butterfill, John

Amess, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Amos, Alan

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Chapman, Sydney

Atkins, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Colvin, Michael

Beith, A. J.

Conway, Derek

Bendall, Vivian

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Cormack, Patrick

Bevan, David Gilroy

Couchman, James

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cran, James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Critchley, Julian

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Boswell, Tim

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

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Day, Stephen

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Devlin, Tim

Bowis, John

Dickens, Geoffrey

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dicks, Terry

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dorrell, Stephen

Brazier, Julian

Duffy, A. E. P.

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

Dunn, Bob

Buck, Sir Antony

Durant, Tony

Buckley, George J.

Dykes, Hugh

Budgen, Nicholas

Eggar, Tim

Burns, Simon

Emery, Sir Peter

29

Fallon, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Favell, Tony

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Fearn, Ronald

Monro, Sir Hector

Gardiner, George

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Moore, Rt Hon John

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Goodlad, Alastair

Moss, Malcolm

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Gow, Ian

Mudd, David

Gregory, Conal

Neale, Gerrard

Grist, Ian

Nelson, Anthony

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Neubert, Michael

Hague, William

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Nicholls, Patrick

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Norris, Steve

Hannam, John

O'Brien, William

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

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Haselhurst, Alan

Paice, James

Hawkins, Christopher

Patnick, Irvine

Hayes, Jerry

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hayward, Robert

Price, Sir David

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hill, James

Redwood, John

Hind, Kenneth

Reid, Dr John

Holt, Richard

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hordern, Sir Peter

Riddick, Graham

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Irvine, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Jack, Michael

Rost, Peter

Janman, Tim

Rowe, Andrew

Johnston, Sir Russell

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Ryder, Richard

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kennedy, Charles

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Key, Robert

Shelton, Sir William

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Knapman, Roger

Sims, Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knox, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Latham, Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Speller, Tony

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Squire, Robin

Lilley, Peter

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stern, Michael

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Summerson, Hugo

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Maclean, David

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Thornton, Malcolm

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

McNamara, Kevin

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Malins, Humfrey

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Mallon, Seamus

Tracey, Richard

Mans, Keith

Tredinnick, David

Maples, John

Trippier, David

Marland, Paul

Twinn, Dr Ian

Marlow, Tony

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Viggers, Peter

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Waller, Gary

Maude, Hon Francis

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Warren, Kenneth

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Watts, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Wells, Bowen

Miller, Sir Hal

Wheeler, Sir John

Mills, Iain

Whitney, Ray

30

Widdecombe, Ann

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wiggin, Jerry

Wigley, Dafydd

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wilshire, David

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

NOES

Allen, Graham

Hoyle, Doug

Armstrong, Hilary

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Barron, Kevin

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Beckett, Margaret

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

Leighton, Ron

Bidwell, Sydney

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

McCartney, Ian

Buchan, Norman

McFall, John

Caborn, Richard

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Callaghan, Jim

McLeish, Henry

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Madden, Max

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Michael, Alun

Cohen, Harry

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Coleman, Donald

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

O'Neill, Martin

Corbett, Robin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Cunningham, Dr John

Patchett, Terry

Dalyell, Tarn

Pike, Peter L.

Darling, Alistair

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Prescott, John

Dobson, Frank

Quin, Ms Joyce

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Radice, Giles

Eadie, Alexander

Richardson, Jo

Eastham, Ken

Rogers, Allan

Faulds, Andrew

Ruddock, Joan

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Sedgemore, Brian

Flannery, Martin

Sheerman, Barry

Flynn, Paul

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Short, Clare

Foster, Derek

Skinner, Dennis

Foulkes, George

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Fraser, John

Spearing, Nigel

Fyfe, Maria

Straw, Jack

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Walley, Joan

Gould, Bryan

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Harman, Ms Harriet

Winnick, David

Haynes, Frank

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Heffer, Eric S.

Tellers for the Noes:

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mrs. Alice Mahon.

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Following is the report of the Business committee:
That—
(1) The Order in which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are taken shall be—

(a) Clause No. 11 amendments to paragraph 3 of Schedule No. 2, remaining proceedings on that Schedule,

(b) New Clause 4, other new Clauses, new Schedules.

(2)The allotted days which under[2nd April] are given to the proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be allotted in the manner shown in the table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that order, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Clause No. 11 and Schedule No. 2

11 p.m.

Second day

Proceedings on new Clauses and new Schedules

11 p.m.

Orders of the Day
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

    FIRST ALLOTTED DAY
    Considered in Committee
    [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Before I call the Leader of the House to move amendment No. 1, I remind the House that our debate must terminate at 11 pm. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part, so I appeal at the outset for brief speeches.

    Clause 11

      LICENCES FOR TREATMENT, STORAGE AND RESEARCH
      Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 5, line 33, leave out from 'embryos' to end of line 35.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient for the Committee to consider the following amendments: No. 3, in schedule 2, page 29, line 32, leave out paragraph 3.
      No. 2, in schedule 2, page 29, line 24, leave out 'or 3'.
      No. 4, in schedule 2, page 30, leave out lines 25 to 27.
      4.8 pm
      The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that this is an extremely important debate and one of great moment to our society outside the House. The issue which we must decide is whether or not to allow the kind of research being done now on human embryos to continue. It is an issue which requires us to deal with fundamental questions and beliefs about right and wrong. It challenges the House to examine the meaning of terms, such as "human life" and "embryo", and to determine the respect which the embryo should be accorded at its various stages.
      Because these questions deal with such basic moral issues, many people hold strong but widely differing views and emotions about them. I am sure on the strength of our Second Reading debate that the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will fully match the importance and difficulty of the subject. It is incumbent on all of us to examine the issues closely, calmly and rigorously before each of us decides individually through which Division Lobby our conscience leads us.
      When, on Second Reading, I stated that the present legislative position in this area was unsatisfactory, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who is again present, asked precisely what was unsatisfactory about the present law in relation to embryo research. In short, it is the fact that there is no law on the subject. Researchers may legally undertake any research they wish on human embryos for any purpose they wish. For example, they could attempt to create hybrids between humans and animals or attempt to clone individuals legally. That they are not doing so is thanks to the sense of responsibility of scientists and clinicians and their voluntary adherence to the ethical guidelines laid down by the interim licensing
      32
      authority, which was set up jointly in 1985 by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Medical Research Council.
      The present position therefore is that embryo research in this country is lawful. The intention of the legislation before us today is to apply new legal constraints to embryo research, either by prohibiting it altogether, or by permitting it in certain closely specified circumstances under a statutory system of licensing and control. This is in addition to the Bill's proposals for control of certain infertility treatments and the storage of gametes and embryos, all of which involve sensitive questions concerning either using or keeping embryos outside the body or the status of any resulting child.
      In the White Paper "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation", the Government clearly indicated their intention of allowing a free vote on the question of whether or not embryo research should be allowed to continue in this country. When the Bill was introduced in the other place, it contained the significant drafting innovation in that clause11 contained two mutually exclusive provisions about what would, in future, be lawful. One allowed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to issue licences for research, as well as for treatment services and the storage of gametes and embryos. The other allowed the authority to issue licences for research and storage purposes only. In the event, their Lordships supported the option in favour of embryo research, and the Bill now before us therefore contains provisions allowing the authority to grant licences for research on human embryos up to 14 days, after the date of conception.
      As the Bill comes to us from another place, schedule 2 provides that a licence can authorise the creation of embryos or keeping or using them for research, but only for the research project which is specified in the licence. It also specifies that a licence for research can be issued for an activity only if it appears to the authority to be necessary or desirable for certain purposes. I shall return to those in a moment.
      So that hon. and right hon. Members in this House may have the same opportunity of debating and voting freely on this important issue as their Lordships had, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has tabled a number of amendments which, if passed, would have the effect of reversing the decision made in the other place. If the amendments were passed, the Bill would provide that the authority could issue licences for treatment services and for the storage of gametes and embryos but not for research. Human embryo research in this country would become unlawful.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: If this House should reverse that decision and if the House of Lords should then adhere to its original decision, would the Government take a line?
      Mr. Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend would predict that my answer is that we shall cross that bridge if and when we come to it, but today it is important that we know the opinion of this House of Parliament. If there is a conflict between the Houses when both have taken their first vote, there are well-established procedures through which we would attempt to ensure that the matter is resolved.
      Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make clear what effect the amendments would have? I thought I heard him say that, if we pass the amendments put down by the Leader of the House, human embryology research would have to cease. Is that right?
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Clarke: The research on the human embryo of the kind presently carried out with the approval of the licensing authority would cease. I hope to keep my speech brief, but I may touch on the arguments on the difference between so-called destructive research and therapeutic research. Certainly, research of the sort carried out at present, within the guidelines of the interim authority, would be rendered unlawful if the amendments were passed.
      As I made clear on Second Reading, the Government take no collective stance on the rights and wrongs of embryo research. The sole purpose of my right hon. and learned Friend in putting down the amendments is to ensure that the House has the best opportunity to debate the matter fully and a clear and free choice on the important issue of human embryo research.
      Mr. Tam Dalyel rose——
      Mr. Clarke: I shall give way, but I shall not do so frequently, because if I did I would make a long opening speech. It would not be appropriate to have a long opening Government speech on this debate.
      Mr. Dalyell: I appreciate that the Government do not take a collective stance, but is not the House of Commons entitled to hear the professional opinion of the chief medical officer?
      Mr. Clarke: The House is entitled to be reminded of some of the key arguments, including those of professional bodies, and I will do so later. The Government's chief medical officer is an adviser to the Government and does not have a policy of his own on these matters. I shall briefly cover the scientific and medical arguments in a balanced way, because, as I said, the Government have no collective stance on the matter.
      The first argument, which is not, in itself, particularly medical or scientific, but is central to the debate, is the status which each individual Member will decide, according to his or her own conscience, should rightly be accorded to the embryo. Central to this is the question of when a human comes into existence.
      There is a strongly held belief that the egg, at the moment it is penetrated by the sperm, represents the start of human life and should, from that point, be afforded the same status as a child or an adult. For those who hold to that view, the egg in the process of fertilisation and the resulting embryo represent an unborn child, and its existence as a human should be respected from the start of its development at the very start of conception. Those who hold that view argue that an embryo should not be the subject of research any more than a child or adult should.
      Others take the view that the moment of penetration of the egg by the sperm does not have this special significance. Even after cell division has started, some 30 hours later, the cells are undifferentiated, so that it is impossible to say which will eventually form the foetus and which will form the placenta and other structures which are discarded at
      34
      birth. Those who hold that view believe that status as an individual can begin only at, or after, the stage where cells differentiate in such a way that those which will become the foetus, or sometimes more than one foetus, can be clearly discerned. Those who take that view consider that research should be permitted until that stage, which coincides with the appearance of the so-called "primitive streak" at 14 days after penetration of the egg.
      My own opinion is that that, which I have briefly described, is the critical point of the debate. Is the embryo before the emergence of the primitive streak sufficient of a human personality to be protected by the law against the risk of perishing as part of a research programme? There are important further issues about the merits and purpose of research that might be contemplated. However, to those who believe that the embryo is a human when the sperm penetrates the egg, that must be the end of the matter. However worthwhile the research might be claimed to be, it must be wrong to research in the way that people are doing at present.
      This debate will canvass issues of philosophy, and medical and scientific opinions, but it is essentially an ethical matter, about which we must all make our own judgment. To a certain extent, I am influenced by the fact that my background is that of a lawyer. We are talking about the structure of law that will, or will not, give protection to particular citizens and personalities.
      I cannot accept that the early embryo is a human personality with which I can identify as a person and to whom the criminal law must give protection. That is essentially a layman's judgment, as it will be for most hon. Members on both sides of the argument.
      I am influenced by the tiny size of the embryo that we are talking about and by the fact that on rare occasions it could develop into more than one person if it developed at all. I am also advised that a high proportion of embryos perish naturally at this stage in any event. I cannot see that this is a very important stage of human development to which we should give the absolute protection as a citizen, although some clearly feel that it should have that protection.
      Mr. David Alton: Will the Minister clarify for the benefit of the House whether he believes that, after two weeks' gestation, there is personhood and that from that point on the developing human being is entitled to the full support of the law? As a lawyer, is he saying that for all purposes after two weeks gestation the developing child must be protected?
      Mr. Clarke: No, I am certainly not. I shall turn to that subject in a moment. The evolution of a human being and citizen from the potential that arises when sperm and egg are first united is a steady and continuous process, and it is difficult to say at what stage a citizen and human being appears. At various stages, fresh rights are acquired. Inheritance and property rights and so on come much later. However, the 14-day stage—the primitive streak stage—is a logical point beyond which it would be unwise to engage in research. Before that, I do not recognise the unborn child as a citizen that is entitled to absolute protection—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. and learned Friend has referred twice to the perishing of an embryo, but what the Bill is about is the destruction of embryos, not their natural perishing.
      Mr. Clarke: I do not mind using the word "destruction", although in practice the embryo is sometimes allowed to perish, just as a high proportion of embryos perish naturally at this stage. I accept that the result is that the embryo does not go on to develop into a human being.
      For the reasons I have given, I am prepared to move on to the next step in the argument, which we must all consider in any event. Is the research worth while in medical and scientific terms? Whatever our views, all hon. Members will agree that the human embryo at this stage must be treated with respect as a potential human being, not just as any other piece of human tissue.
      So I turn now to the more detailed arguments for and against research. Most of us have already given a great deal of thought to this, but it is a question of such importance that it is worth looking once more at the central arguments to see whether we have missed anything along the way. I shall endeavour to set them out clearly, drawing on the advice available to me, incuding that of the chief medical officer, to whom the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred. I hope to do so in a reasonably balanced way, so as to do the arguments roughly equal justice.
      It is necessary for the House to examine the purposes for which reaserch may be carried out and to decide whether they are of sufficient weight to justify the destruction of the embryo. If we approve the purposes, we should all ask ourselves not only whether the research is well intentioned but whether there is a reasonable livelihood that it can achieve its aims; otherwise, we might find ourselves supporting a vain use of human embryos.
      The arguments in favour of embryo research are therefore often practical ones in the case of each project or subject area. Could the benefits accruing from the particular research work that a team has in mind justify the consequential destruction of the embryos? If human embryo research can in principle sometimes be justified for one purpose, that does not and should not mean that we have crossed some sort of rubicon. Those in favour of research accept that we would need an authority to license each team for its research, if permitted. In each case it would decide whether there was a sufficiently important purpose to justify the use of the human embryo in that case.
      Those who maintain that research on human embryos can in some circumstances be justified base their contention on the benefits to humanity that such research could be expected to bring. Here, the arguments in favour of research enjoy such distinguished scientific support as is afforded by, for example, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal Society and a wide range of scientific and medical opinion. Such bodies claim that research would provide information to deal with five key areas.
      First, research could promote advances in the treatment of infertility. Secondly, it could increase knowledge about the causes of congenital disease. Thirdly, it could increase knowledge about the causes of miscarriages. Fourthly, it could develop more effective techniques of contraception. Finally, it could develop more effective methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. They are all different, and it is important to consider them briefly one by one.
      36
      The first is infertility. All hon. Members will, like me, have received over the years pleas from people whose hopes for the alleviation of infertility are pinned on a vote in favour of continuing embryo research. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said on Second Reading that the interim licensing authority has estimated—correctly, as far as I can judge—that one couple in eight in this country suffers from infertility. Some of them feel that they have to endure a social stigma in admitting their inability to have a child. They often undergo the indignity and undoubted discomfort of infertility treatments, only to have their hopes dashed time after time, when the woman fails to conceive after treatment or has a miscarriage after treatment.
      Those of us who have not been in that position sometimes find it hard fully to appreciate the misery and the real strain and stress that it causes for such couples. For some, the only hope lies in assisted reproduction methods such as in vitro fertilisation. While the success rate of these techniques has improved considerably since the birth of Louise Brown in 1978, it is still disappointingly low.
      As I have said, many people suffer the discomfort and disappointment of failed treatment. Many doctors and scientists working in this field believe that further research could improve the success rates—for example, by improving the culture medium or by obtaining a better understanding of the viability of embryos before they are transferred to the uterus.
      Those who support embryo research also argue that it will increase our knowledge about the causes of congenital diseases, particularly chromosomal diseases. As a species, we members of homo sapiens suffer the particular misfortune of being especially subject to chromosomal disorders. Some of the abnormalities of this type are thought to develop during the egg's maturation process, and some during the process of fertilisation itself. I am advised that, as yet, there is little information about which occur at which stage.
      Scientists and doctors working in this field say that it is necessary to understand something about how and when these abnormalities occur to help them in their work towards further advances in prevention or therapy. This leads them to argue that carefully controlled experiments involving hyman embryos could provide them with the knowledge that might ultimately lead to the prevention of some of these congenital diseases.
      Mr. Alistair Burt: My right hon. and learned Friend describes the process by which the law decides whether to allow a particular form of experiment based on the ends to which it is directed. Can he say how much account is taken of the availability of alternative research that would not involve the destruction of the embryo but would fulfil exactly the same ends?
      Mr. Clarke: The interim licensing authority would take heed of that and would be expected to do so. However, there is a division of opinion about the extent to which any success could be achieved without the kind of experiment on human embryos that some people find immoral and offensive. I shall return to that matter. The bodies that I have quoted—the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal Society—and those working in the field are convinced that similar advances

      37
      could not be made without research into the human embryo. I shall come back to that. As I have said, there is a division of opinion, even scientific opinion.
      Sir Bernard Braine: There have been such advances.
      Mr. Clarke: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will argue that case, as he did on Second Reading.
      On another aspect of research, it is also tragic that more than one in five pregnancies in the United Kingdom end in miscarriage. There are about 100,000 miscarriages a year in this country. We all know that miscarriage may cause haemorrhage or infection and that the sufferers may require hospital treatment. Quite apart from that is the distress suffered by the women involved, many of whom suffer repeated miscarriages as they try to have a family.
      Some miscarriages seem to occur because the foetus is malformed or defective. However, in many other cases the cause is simply not obvious to those engaged in medical science. Scientists claim that research on embryos has already identified that chromosone abnormalities may also play a part, and I am advised that much more work is needed before all these causes can be identified. The researchers believe that the continuation of controlled embryo research will help to make it possible to understand hitherto unexplained miscarriages and to reduce the possibility of their occurrence.
      4.30 pm
      The proponents of embryo research argue that it could lead to improved methods of contraception—for example, through the development of a birth control vaccine. Here, we all appreciate that we are entering an area of controversy, because destruction of embryos is inevitable in such research. A birth control vaccine would have to undergo rigorous clinical trials before being approved for use. Because contraceptive failure could possibly result in pregnancy in some cases, even after successful trials, it is considered essential that such vaccines are tested on embryos in vitro.
      Those who support a contraceptive vaccine—they include myself—argue that it would generally increase choice and lead to safer methods of contraception. Also, in the developing world, the arrival of a birth control vaccine would have even greater benefits because it should be simpler to administer and longer lasting compared with current methods. The World Health Organisation shares and advocates this view. A simpler birth control vaccine which could be administered through family planning programmes could have significant benefits for developing countries in particular, where the rate of population growth is particularly rapid and brings in its train severe economic and social difficulties.
      Not all new reproductive technologies are aimed at helping infertile couples to have children. Some are designed to help people to have healthy normal children by allowing a range of congenital diseases and handicaps to be detected prenatally by pre-implantation diagnosis. The possibility of preventing genetic disease is one of the reasons most frequently cited in support of embryo research.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that I wrote to him last week about claims made in the press by Dr. Robert Winston that, if passed, these amendments would prevent clinical
      38
      pre-implantation of the embryo in the womb? Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that schedule 2, paragraph (1)(d) would allow such pre-implantation screening for genetic handicaps to continue even if today we voted for a ban on destructive embryo research?
      Mr. Clarke: It is not for me to argue for Dr. Winston. My understanding is that he would argue that he could not have got where he is now if he had not been permitted to carry out research of the kind that he wishes to continue carrying out. As I understand it, in these cases, embryos are screened for their sex so that the female embryos can be re-implanted to avoid the disease suffered only by the male. That treatment, now that it is being developed, could be continued if the amendments were agreed to.
      However, there is a second area of argument, which may well be canvassed in the debate. Do those who favour such treatment accept that, when the embryos have been sexed, only females should be re-implanted, and the males allowed to perish? In my opinion, and that of those in favour of research and treatment, the answer is yes, but some take the view that in no case should any embryo be dealt with clinically for any purpose unless it is re-implanted.
      Sir David Steel: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the amendment were passed, the point made to me in a letter this morning by the mother of a child with Duchenne muscular dystrophy is well founded—that, even if the destruction of embryos were disallowed under the Bill, the option of abortion would continue, which would result in the irony that we would allow parents the chance of an abortion later in pregnancy, which is less desirable than allowing interference with the embryo?
      Mr. Clarke: That is strongly argued. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to seek the opportunity to pursue the arguments later, rather than using my speech as a vehicle for them. I feel that the arguments have been neatly balanced on the issue.
      Certain genetic abnormalities, as the right hon. Gentleman says, can be detected between about eight and 16 weeks' gestation and the affected foetuses aborted if the women so wishes and if the doctors concerned are satisfied that the conditions laid down in the Abortion Act 1967 are met. The ability to diagnose genetic disease within a few days of fertilisation would, researchers argue, alter that by enabling only healthy embryos to be transferred to the uterus.
      Rapid progress is now being made with the development of these techniques. We have seen recent attention drawn to it by Professor Robert Winston and his colleagues at Hammersmith hospital. The technique that they have developed may now become more widely available as part of IVF treatment. Scientists working in this area argue that further research will open up new possibilities for enabling couples who are known to be carriers of a genetic disease to have an unaffected child of either sex by IVF.
      Without the availability of pre-implantation diagnosis, couples are left with three difficult choices, one of which has just been touched upon. If it is not possible to diagnose at the pre-implantation stage, the choice is to accept the substantial risk of having a child with a genetic disease or

      39
      to have ante-natal screening with the possibility of an abortion if the tests show that the foetus is affected. The third option is to remain childless.
      Much embryo research, including that related to in vitro fertilisation, is carried out on animals; that was adverted to a few moments ago. Most researchers believe, however, that it is not possible safely to extrapolate the results of studies in animals to the human context. For example, they have shown that human embryos react differently from other mammalian embryos under various conditions. They argue from this that all except the most trivial changes in procedure therefore require research on human embryos to ensure that the standard of safety which must be secured before embryos which have been subject to special procedures are inserted into a women to achieve a pregnancy. Researchers argue that real progress in this area depends on improved understanding of fundamental aspects of human embryology and that such understanding can come safely and ethically only from research involving human embryos.
      That leads researchers on to an ethical argument that will certainly be raised during the debate. I agree strongly with those who say that there must be limits to the total non-interventionist approach.
      There are those who argue that there can be non-destructive research. I have heard it argued that such research might be permitted, so long as every embryo used is implanted into the womb to restore its prospects of life. I find that difficult to accept, and I cannot conceive that many medical or scientific people would knowingly implant into the womb an embryo that they believed was probably carrying some genetic disorder. I think that the argument cannot be carried to that extent.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
      Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way. I await speeches that will improve my understanding of the argument of those who favour what they call therapeutic rather than destructive research. The case will have to be made with considerable care if it is being said that to allow the embryo to perish in all circumstances is somehow always ethically wrong.
      I think that the researchers all say that it would be irresponsible for doctors to replace in the womb fertilised human eggs that had been subjected to novel procedures or tests, for these might themselves lead to abnormality. They say that to use the mother as part of the research, and then to put in an embryo which has been subjected to research and might have been made abnormal by the research, would be unacceptable. They therefore argue that the subsequent development of the embryos should be studied in vitro for several days. If the development of an embryo in vitro is studied for several days after the experiment, that takes one to a time when transfer to a women would no longer be a possibility.
      Finally, the supporters of research say that, in the course of nature, many embryos that are created fail to implant in the uterus and perish anyway. They draw an analogy between what happens in nature and embryos that have no prospect of being placed in a uterus and so are bound to perish. As those embryos would not become children—for example, spare embryos produced as a result
      40
      of fertility treatments—they conclude that it is ethically acceptable to carry out carefully controlled research on them.
      I shall now, in fairness, remind the House of the arguments against embryo research—although I shall do so briefly, as others, inspired by deep conviction, will put the arguments more eloquently than I can.
      Those opposed to research involving human embryos argue that, although such research might serve to prevent genetic disease or to help infertile couples, in doing so it leads to the destruction of the embryo that is used for research purposes. I accept that opponents of research fully share my sympathy for those affected by genetic disorders and other conditions and that they generally support the value of medical research towards finding effective treatments, but they cannot condone the use of embryos for such purposes. They do not believe that the end can justify the means. They do not accept that the destruction of the embryo justifies the knowledge that might be obtained through its destruction.
      For many people the human embryo is a living human being; to use the term used in correspondence to all Members of Parliament, it is an "unborn child". They argue that the same ethical considerations should apply as apply to research on adult human beings. They do not accept that, even if a significant proportion of embryos fail naturally, that in any way justifies carrying out research on any embryo which, in their view, has the potential for development. They draw an analogy with infant mortality, which has been high throughout most of human history, saying that no one would use that as an argument to attempt to justify similar experimentation on new-born babies.
      Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The essential test that some hon. Members and I would apply to the Secretary of State's argument is that nothing should be done to an embryo except for its own good.
      Mr. Clarke: I understand that that is the argument—that the only treatment or technique that should be applied to an embryo is one that is for the benefit of that embryo. In my opinion, it is difficult to apply that test, especially to those spare embryos that are sometimes produced through infertility treatment and that have no prospect of ever being implanted and therefore no prespect of life. It is my view that the perishing of an embryo that has no prospect of life in the cause of beneficial research is worth while. That is what we shall discuss throughout the day. I was trying, briefly, to do justice to the hon. Gentleman's feelings that all research into embryos is an affront to human life and should not be countenanced in any circumstances, however beneficial they might be.
      If accepted, that argument is a complete case in itself, but some opponents go on to areas of great scientific and medical controversy and try to cast doubts, in any event, on the potential value of research that allows the embryo to perish. Opponents of human embryo' research, including some scientists and doctors, maintain that improvements in all the areas of medicine mentioned can be achieved without research on human embryos. They assert that many scientific and medical breakthroughs have been achieved which have enhanced our knowledge of some genetic diseases without recourse to embryo research.

      41
      They quote examples like the discovery of the gene that causes cystic fibrosis and argue that there is no reason to believe that progress of that sort will not continue. They also point to the advances that were made in developing kidney transplant surgery in the 1960s, when doctors carried out their research on patients to try to save their lives. They hold the view—which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) expounded—that that approach, which follows more closely the ethical framework in which other medical research is conducted, should also apply to embryo research. Furthermore, they argue that embryo research will not lead to a cure for genetic diseases but only to the prevention of such diseases. That is because any embryo that was found to carry the defective gene would not be transferred but left to perish. For them, it is more acceptable to concentrate on curing genetic disease by, for example, gene therapy.
      I accept the strength of those arguments and realise that those who put them forward acknowledge the misery that infertility brings to some people, but they argue that, instead of investing so much in what so often turns out to be unsuccessful treatment to overcome the effects of infertility, it would be more constructive within society to investigate, treat and prevent the underlying causes.
      Frequently, the strongest opposition to embryo research is directed against the use of embryos to develop new contraceptive methods. Those who share that opinion do not accept that it is necessary or acceptable to add to methods which are already available, and they find it particularly abhorrent that embryos should be used to test the efficiency of their own destruction.
      4.45 pm
      Many of those who argue against embryo research are also concerned about the so-called "slippery slope" arguments. For example, if research were permitted for the first 14 days, they fear that it would not be long before pressure would begin to mount for research on embryos beyond 14 days because it would produce allegedly beneficial results; or if pre-implantation diagnosis can be developed to detect sex-linked genetic diseases, it might be used not for medical reasons but merely to ensure that a couple could choose to have a child of a particular sex, or who knows what other allegedly desirable genetic features. Those are only some of the deeply held arguments advanced, by those, from many walks of life, who have reached the conclusion that research on human embryos must, on ethical or religious grounds, be opposed. Some of the dangers that they perceive would be feared by every hon. Member, even if research were permitted. A strong licensing authority and a framework of law are plainly desirable so that our worst fears could never be realised.
      I hope that I have fairly presented the basis of the arguments on both sides of the debate, reminded hon. Members of the issues—with some of which we are all familiar—and clarified them. However, I do not think that I should take the arguments very much further. I think that there is a gulf that cannot be bridged between those who cannot, in all conscience, countenance the idea of research on human embryos, and those who believe that, with proper controls and for good purposes, it can be justified. However, there is one small but essential area of common ground—that there is something special about the human embryo. Sadly, that is where the common
      42
      ground ends. At least it ends in an argument that gives rise to a system of licensing control, even if the House decides to allow research.
      I have never made any secret of my views on this subject, either to my constituents or to the House. The emergence of a human being from the cells that carry a potential life is a continuous process. It begins with sperm and egg, which fuse to become an embryo, which implants in the mother's womb, and so on through a steady and continuous process until a baby is delivered conscious into the world. For me, there is no single moment at which I could easily say that a human life—the life of an individual human being—actually begins. I certainly do not enter into the world of theology, and I confess that I do not have an opinion on when the soul actually enters the emerging human personality.
      Perhaps I am somewhat influenced by my background as a lawyer. The law should begin to give full protection of rights to life and limb and so eventually on to family law, property, inheritance and so on at a very much later stage than the emergence of the primitive streak. That stage seems a logical stage at which to give a potential human being protection against being the subject of research. I believe that, as long as embryo research is done openly and within the framework of strict statutory controls such as are laid down in the Bill, the benefits that are held in promise by that research should not be withheld from those who wish to take advantage of them.
      In this House we all share a moral duty to respect and protect the sanctity of human life. We also all share a moral duty to alleviate suffering and to fight against disease. In my opinion, a vote in favour of properly regulated research for sound medical reasons is compatible with both those moral duties. I shall therefore vote against the amendments. However, I am genuinely interested in hearing more views on this profound matter during the debate, and I shall respect the final judgment of the House when it makes it tonight.
      Ms. Jo Richardson: The Secretary of Slate has a difficult task, and I appreciate his attempts to set out fairly the pros and cons of the arguments that we shall debate today.
      The House has a serious responsibility in reaching a decision on whether embryo research should be allowed to continue under strictly controlled conditions, overseen by a statutory licensing authority. We are not scientists or doctors and must rely on informed opinions. I am grateful, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members are, for the information that has landed in enormous quantities on our desks. It has come from the Royal Society of Medicine, the royal colleges and the interim licensing authority—which has done a fine job of regulating research so far. Information has also come from people involved in the research itself. We are all better informed than we were even two weeks ago, and certainly more informed than we were one or two years ago.
      No right hon. or hon. Member could fail to be impressed by the representations made by the large number of genetic interest groups individually and under the umbrella of the Genetic Interest Group, which comprises 36 organisations—all of which have a direct concern in the outcome of tonight's vote. Representations have also been made—at least to me—by women's organisations. I was pleased to find on my desk only this morning a letter from the Townswomen's Guild.

      43
      I am grateful for the representations that I have received from people, including doctors and scientists, who know of my strong position in favour of embryo research. From reading all that material, it is clear that a number of myths have been created—the Secretary of State referred to some of them. They need refuting, and later I shall do so.
      First, I want to discuss the chronology of human development. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his views on that aspect, and I shall do so in the context of the outline provided by the Medical Research Council. There has been much discussion in past weeks, months and years on the terminology used to describe the development of the embryo. Some argue that it is wrong to talk about pre-embryos. Now that we have had an opportunity to study the subject more deeply, it is important to differentiate between the stages of embryo development.
      There are three in all. The first, pre-embryo, stage covers the 14 days before the primitive streak emerges, and beyond which time no further research will be allowed. At 14 days, the pre-embryo measures about 1 mm. The primitive streak marks the beginning of individual development, as the Secretary of State said. Dr. Ann MacLaren, in her paper for the April 1990 issue of the journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, states that it is the point at which development is "literally undividable." It marks the formation of the individual embryo that will develop into a foetus and then into a baby. No research will be allowed beyond that 14-day stage.
      One is talking of a cluster of cells that may not develop into an embryo. If all goes well, the primitive streak will develop. However, in a large number of cases it does not and no embryo forms. If a pre-embryo is implanted, it coincides with the time that a women would have started her next period. I make the division between pre-embryo and embryo, and between embryo and foetus, because it is important to be clear. The embryo develops from 15 days to eight weeks, when it is 30 mm in size, and into a foetus at nine weeks. It becomes a baby at 40 weeks.
      Many people claim that the 14-day limit is arbitrary, but it is not. It marks a well-known chronological event, which is why the Warnock committee chose it. It did not pluck that limit out of the air, saying, "We must pick a number—14 days will do." It represents a particular stage in the chronology of the development of a human being.
      Mr. Alton: Does the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) acknowledge that the Warnock committee never once used the phrase "pre-embryo", but that it has been invented since? The hon. Lady states that babies are born at 40 weeks, but does she accept that babies have been born at only 23 weeks in this country and have survived? Does she also accept that at a much earlier stage than birth—if she charts birth as occurring at 40 weeks—rights should be given to the unborn child? Does she agree that a point should be reached between fertilisation and birth at which the child has rights?
      Ms. Richardson: I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was going to make his full speech now. I acknowledge that Warnock did not use the phrase pre-embryo, but I use it because I need to clarify in my own mind the various stages of development. The arguments as to the point at which
      44
      the foetus is capable of independent life will be dealt with in tomorrow's debate. I do not want to introduce now—and never have done—issues relating to abortion in debating embryo research.
      Over the past 20 years, scientists have limited their research to embryos no more than 14 days old. Up to that point, a woman who had conceived naturally might not know of her pregnancy if she had not missed her period. It is only when a woman misses her period that she suspects that she might be pregnant. Research that may assist infertile couples or women who frequently miscarry, or which may identify hereditary genetic defects, is undertaken during the period when the fertilised egg may or may not become an embryo, then a foetus, and finally a baby.
      Opponents to research on the pre-embryo or embryo before 14 days argue that everything that needs to be known can be learned from research on animals—but that is not true. There is ample evidence that there are vast differences in the physiological make-up of human and animal pre-embryos. Recently, New Scientist reported that a technique to identify the genetic defect that causes the Lesch-Nyham syndrome in the mouse embryo was completely unsuccessful when applied to a human pre-embryo. Lesch-Nyham affects only boys, who rarely reach adolescence. It is a particularly painful and distressing condition for their parents too, as those suffering from it practice self-mutilation by biting their lips and arms. We must hope that at some time in the future a way will be found of helping sufferers from that disorder.
      Let us be clear what pre-embryo research could achieve. Opponents say that we claim that it will produce a cure for genetic disorders. No scientist has ever claimed that. It will not produce a cure. It is not on offer as a method of screening for general genetic disorders. The objective is to identify and offer help to people who are at risk of passing on a genetic disorder. Normally such people are identified only after they have had a child with a genetic disease or if there is a family history of that disease. We allow the amniocentesis test at 16 weeks of pregnancy and the chorionic villus test at 10 weeks and we give women under the present law the option of an abortion if they are found to be carrying an affected foetus.
      It is difficult to understand why we should now seek to stop research projects which could detect affected genes before pregnancy is established by taking a single cell from the developing conceptus after fertilisation in vitro before replacing the pre-embryo in the mother. Only pre-embryos which were free from genetic disease would be replaced so that the woman could start her pregnancy knowing that her baby would not be affected, thus avoiding the painful and difficult decision at a later stage—10, 11 or 12 weeks or between 17 and 20 weeks—of whether to have an abortion.
      5 pm
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: Perhaps the hon. Lady will recall the point that I made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. There is provision in the Bill to ensure that pre-implantation techniques such as she has described can be carried on in the best interests of the baby and of the mother. I do not think that any Conservative Member would wish to stop those techniques. I hope that the hon. Lady will not spend too much time chasing a rabbit that will not run.
      Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady should consider her own research. I am aware of what she is trying to tell me, but if we stopped the research that is now being carried out, and which we are seeking to enshrine in law, we should not be able to carry out the techniques that I am describing which seek to help people.
      Frankly, I do not understand people who suggest that research at that stage stops a human life beginning. It is all about helping to create a healthy pregnancy and healthy children.
      Another claim that is frequently made is that pre-embryos could be screened by observation. I am sure that we would all be pleased if that was the case. As many as one third of developing pre-embryos can be genetically disordered and will fail to implant. Visual inspection is a highly unreliable method of assessing the normality of the pre-embryo.
      During my contribution to the Second Reading debate, I dealt with another myth—that cross-fertilisation leads to the creation of human-animal hybrids. The Bill allows the use of the hamster test under strictly controlled conditions. It is a useful test, but hamster eggs are not viable and cannot possibly be used for hybridisation, as they are not genetically compatible and never can be. Please do not let us have that myth hanging about, raising emotional feelings in people outside the House who do not have the advantage of knowing the facts.
      Other myths are bandied about to hide the beneficial effects and the importance of research. Another myth is that each IVF baby costs £25,000 to produce. There is no evidence for that. In 1989, Hammersmith hospital spent £392,054 on all IVF treatments including salaries, materials and drugs. During that period, the Hammersmith programme produced 247 on-going or delivered pregnancies. Each successful pregnancy therefore cost £1,587. That comparatively low figure may be reduced if research is allowed to continue and if IVF success rates, which are low at present, improve. I am surprised that people who call themselves pro-life should seek to put a price on a baby's head. For some parents almost any price would be worth while. Of course we know that resources are limited, but to prevent parents from having the chance of a baby by suggesting that it is too expensive to give them help seems to be callous in the extreme.
      Another mischievous and slanderous statement is that to support the development of pre-implantation research implies a lack of respect and regard for people with disabilities and for the parents who look after them. Members of the Genetic Interest Group—I hope that hon. Members have read the list because they are a prestigious group including the Dyslexia Institute, the British Tay Sachs Foundation, the Research Trust for Metabolic Diseases in Childhood, Support after Termination for Abnormalities, SENSE, the Tuberous Sclerosis Association and the UK Thalassaemia Society as well as members of Progress, of which I am a member—are deeply involved with meeting the needs of disabled people. They do not simply exist to discuss research. They participate to help disabled people now. Some of their members have disabilities themselves or are parents of disabled children.
      Parents do not positively opt to have a disabled child. Their love for such children is possibly greater than that of parents of children with no handicap and they go to extraordinary lengths to make their children happy.
      46
      Sometimes people point to the wonderful example that handicapped people are to the rest of us. Indeed they are, but those with severe disabilities—often life-threatening—did not ask to be born with a handicap. Life had dealt them a cruel blow, which they and their carers try to cope with as successfully as possible. Let us not suggest that such people chose to be dealt that nasty blow.
      If a youngster suffers an accident after a healthy beginning and is left severely disabled—to make a simple analogy—he or she and the family would not have chosen to have that accident. Many families with severely disabled children sometimes see them die a painful death and would dearly love the chance to have another child free from pain and suffering. Most parents want to avoid the possibility of passing on a hereditary gene which would mean that they had another handicapped child, with all the pain and distress that that causes.
      Please let us not continue the nasty and divisive suggestion that people who support research lack respect and care for those with disabilities. There should be choice, and pre-embryo research offers that prospect to particular groups of parents. No one is forcing anyone to participate. The choice, quite rightly, is entirely theirs.
      Three women carriers of severe genetic disorders have been in the news recently. They are proud and happy because research has meant that they can have a baby free from handicap. As the House will be aware, that was announced in Nature last week and the research was carried out at Hammersmith hospital. Two of those families already have handicapped sons whom they love very dearly, as we saw in the press. However, they are now delighted to learn that they will be able to have girls who will be free of the genetic disorder that affects boys. That is a breakthrough by Hammersmith hospital. It is a world first and we should be proud of that achievement.
      If our crucial vote tonight had taken place last year and research had been banned, those happy mothers and their husbands would have been denied that chance. So much again for the so-called pro-life stance. It is restrictive and, I believe, the antithesis to life.
      The market research conducted by National Opinion Polls shows clearly that public opinion is in favour of research continuing.
      Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: That was carried out for the hon. Lady's association.
      Ms. Richardson: I would like to refer to the results of that poll, but I cannot find them among my papers. However, I have distributed the details to many hon. Members and they show how positively public opinion is in favour of research continuing.
      Mr. Duffy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that NOP survey was commissioned by Progress which she identified a few moments ago? That poll makes an interesting contrast with the Gallup poll carried out only last December which yielded entirely different results. However, as always, the questions were different.
      Ms. Richardson: I believe that opinion has been changing even since last December. More information has become available as we have approached Second Reading and this debate. More and more members of the public are looking closely at what has been happening and are deciding for themselves. Far from the NOP survey being of my creation——
      Mr. Duffy: I did not say that.
      Ms. Richardson: Well, something that seemed to belong to me. I believe that the results of that poll should be of great interest to the House and something of which we should take note.
      Mr. Peter Thurnham: I shall help the hon. Lady with some of the figures for public opinion. Every opinion poll has shown that the public are in favour of research that would help to reduce the incidence of congenital handicap. Even the report commissioned by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which tried to conceal that figure, revealed that 58 per cent. were in favour of research. The latest opinion poll by NOP shows that 71 per cent. of the public are in favour of embryo research for that purpose.
      Ms. Richardson: Although I am not often grateful to a Conservative Member, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for finding the piece of paper that I had misplaced. It is rather curious that I have now found that piece of paper as well.
      Mr. Burt: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Richardson: No, I have been speaking for too long already.
      Our responsibility tonight is very heavy. Their Lordships have shown the way by voting 3:1 in favour of research continuing under strictly controlled and accountable conditions. They clearly saw, as the public now see, that research can be beneficial to humankind and that it can be creative rather than destructive. Some of that research will not bear fruit for many years, perhaps not until after we in this House have retired or passed on. Therefore, we are legislating for the future and for the future of later generations.
      I hope that those generations will not have to say in years to come that on the night of 23 April 1990 the House of Commons turned its back on them by banning research and progress for better lives for people with problems. I hope that the House will vote decisively—as decisively as, or even more so than, the House of Lords did—for research to continue.
      5.15 pm
      Sir Bernard Braine: May I first thank the Government for arranging our business in such a way that we can discuss the momentous issue of embryo research on the Floor of the House rather than in Standing Committee? In doing that, the Government have rightly recognised the sincerely and deeply held views on both sides of the House, and for that we are all—and particularly the pro-life movement—truly grateful.
      On Second Reading I made clear the position of the all-party pro-life group on this issue but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I reiterate two basic points. First, I said that the subject of our debate is the embryonic human, a living dynamic being having its origin in the meeting of human sperm with the human egg. At the point of fertilisation an irreversible process of human development begins. It is here that our clock starts. Before that point a new life is a possibility; thereafter, it is an actuality.
      Human life begins then at conception. That is not a philosophical point, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health seemed to suggest. A
      48
      well-known embryology textbook entitled "The Developing Human", which was published as recently as 1988, states:
      "Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilised by a sperm from a male. Cell division, growth and differentiation transform the fertilised ovum, into a multicellular adult human being."
      That is the technical explanation and the point at which we should start this debate. In short, we are not talking about a cluster of cells. We are talking about human life and it should be treated as such.
      Secondly, I established on Second Reading just what we are opposing and what we are not opposing. I said that we are not against all scientific research. We oppose destructive or non-therapeutic research on human embryos of a type that does not help the individual embryo to live and grow. We object to experimentation which kills the patient. We hold that that is the only moral and responsible position to take.
      The practice or provision of in vitro fertilisation as treatment for infertility is not at stake. We are considering here whether we should allow destructive or non-therapeutic research to continue. In vitro fertilisation as such will continue and will not be stopped. That is not the issue we should be discussing. It is important also to recognise that, repugnant though it is for some, the method of detecting defective embryos will continue to be allowed.
      Schedule 2(1) states that licences may be granted for a course of treatment containing
      "practices designed to secure that embryos are in a suitable condition to be placed in a woman or to determine whether embryos are suitable for that purpose".
      So hon. Members who are concerned that embryos bearing certain defective genes are unlikely to be detected before insertion into a woman's uterus, need not be worried about voting for a ban on research. That practice would not be stopped even if we voted for a ban. The Bill clearly sets this out. Infertile couples can still be helped through IVF.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have a couple of genuine questions for my right hon. Friend. I am not sure of his position. For example, what would be his position if the sex of embroys has been established and there is a genetic disorder that can be suffered by male children and not by female children? Does he accept that the female embryo should be re-implanted and the male embryos allowed to perish, or does he say that all the embryos, including those that may carry a genetic disorder, should be re-implanted?
      Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not be drawn on that. [Interruption.] We are dealing here with questions of life and death—[Interruption.] Therefore, I have an open mind on that subject. I think that we need to go into it in detail. The general proposition that I have made is either accepted by the House and by my right hon. and learned Friend, or it is not: that IVF can continue even if there is a ban on research. I shall deal with that in a larger sense later, because there was an absence from my right hon. and learned Friend's speech—I shall refer to him in a moment—which suggested that the matter has still not been thought through.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is a difference between allowing an embryo to perish and deliberately killing it.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Certainly. Perhaps when the laughter has subsided, some of our hon. Friends will regret having made the interventions that they did. The point I am making is that we are constantly told that, if research were to be banned, then in effect IVF would cease because further research would be outlawed. That is simply not true.
      Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, for whom I have the utmost respect. How can he possibly will the results so that IVF should continue and not will the research that produced IVF in the first place?
      Sir Bernard Braine: If my hon. Friend and the House will permit me to develop my argument, they will see that, although I say that IVF may continue, I do not put my faith about finding a solution to the larger problem of infertility in IVF alone. If I may be allowed to develop my argument, it will be seen that there has been a gap in the provision of information on other methods. Then perhaps we can see the matter in perspective. It would be better if I were allowed to develop my argument.
      Mr. Alton: Before the right hon. Gentleman develops his argument, does he accept that it is one of the cruel paradoxes that in this country today one in five pregnancies now end in abortion? Some 184,000 children are aborted each year, and sadly only 10 per cent. of couples will ever be helped by IVF. For the other 90 per cent., if only those children were available for adoption, that would be one way in which many families could provide loving homes for many wanted children.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I agree. That is one of the moral conundrums we face. Since the passage of the Abortion Act 1967, 2 to 3 million children, most of whom, if allowed to be born, would have been perfectly fit and healthy, have been destroyed. There are alternatives, such as finding happy homes with loving adopted parents. However, we shall discuss the scandal of late abortions tomorrow.
      I now come straight to the point that I wanted to make.
      I have had a letter from a husband and wife who state:
      "As an infertile couple we are anxious to correct the seriously misleading impression that human embryo experimentation is necessary to help people like us. This is not only completely false—it is also giving cruelly false hope to infertile people throughout the country.
      The truth is that even the Warnock Report admitted that test-tube technique (IVF) is suitable for only about 5 per cent. of infertile couples. Furthermore, in countries where embryo experimentation is banned, it is totally wrong to claim that the IVF success rate will not be improved. In fact, in the State of South Australia where embryo research is against the law, the success rate is reported to be higher than in Britain."
      I did not leave my reading of that moving statement there. I checked with my parliamentary medical scientific advisers. Dr. John McLean, senior lecturer in embryology and anatomy at the university of Manchester, tells me:
      "The fact is that since legislation outlawing embryo research was passed the development of IVF in both Victoria and South Australia continues on a par with anywhere else in the world and the results as measured by livebirths in South Australia are the best in the world by about 1 per cent.-2 per cent. The livebirth rate from IVF, judged from the egg pick-up stage achieved by Professor Cohn Matthews at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia, at 17 per cent.-18 per cent. per treatment cycle is considerably better than the figures for Britain given in the Fourth Report of the Interim Licensing Authority."
      That is why hope for the future lies in this direction. I am not saying that there should not be experimentation
      50
      here which has the effect of helping infertile couples, but for God's sake we must surely look at the world situation as a whole and see what is being done elsewere. I should hope that the chief medical officer is able to ascertain for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State what is happening in Australia, where there have been considerable advances.
      Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend because of the misleading information that he gave the House in his earlier intervention.
      Indeed, the 1989 report of the interim licensing authority states:
      "There have been substantial improvements in the efficiency of IVF mainly through better methods for regulating the development of eggs in the ovaries and simple procedures for collecting eggs."
      I am advised that further research could be carried out on the sperm and the egg, which we certainly would not oppose, rather than killing and disposing of human embryos. One of my advisers, an embryologist, has written to me to make the following point—this is not my view but that of a practising embryologist—
      "In vitro fertilisation as a technique has probably reached its acme as far as the in vitro part of the procedure is concerned. The low success rate of the procedures measured by the birth of a live healthy baby lies primarily with the failure of the embryos produced by fertilisation in vitro to implant successfully in the uterus."
      Even Professor Robert Winston, an active and respected figure, told us in 1982 in the medical journal Hospital Doctor that tubal surgery was much more successful than IVF. In that year, he would have offered microsurgery rather than IVF as a treatment for infertility.
      My right hon. and learned Friend said that no other method of treatment showed the same result. Not so. I have given two examples of where other treatment is available, and it is showing good results. We are also led by numerous newspaper articles and by television to believe that IVF is a tried and tested procedure and that it can guarantee parents who may be at risk that they will have a normal child. That is a cruel deceit. Hon. Members may consider it to be unreasonable of me to say this—I allow that there are sharp differences of opinion across the Committee—but I do so in full knowledge of the facts.
      The pro-experimentation lobby is not able to name a single genetic disease, the treatment of which has been helped by human embryo research. Note also that, with them, new discoveries are always around the corner, just about to emerge. The pro-experimentation lobby claims that it may soon be possible to perform pre-implantation diagnosis, examining cells from an embryo to discover whether a specific disorder is present and then destroying the affected embryo. But researchers have been saying for years that that technique is imminent. In 1985 it was just around the corner; in 1987 it could be introduced within months if embryo research were allowed to continue. I remember, when the Warnock report was published, Lady Warnock saying in subsequent discussion that 14 days would do for a beginning. What we are being led to legislate for is the beginning since no great success is likely to be achieved in the first 14 days. After that, perhaps, but then we would be in a different ball game.
      A six-year study of normal IVF published in Australia in 1988 found that the incidence of spina bifida was five times higher than normal; that of congenital heart disease

      51
      was six times higher than normal and perinatal mortality was four times higher than normal. How can pro-experimenters say that couples can guarantee that any pregnancy achieved by that method would be unaffected?
      A paper published in The Lancet—a respected journal—last October warned:
      "The public health position requires that efficacy and risks be known before the procedure becomes standard. We should heed the lessons of the Dalkon Shield and thalidomide".
      We should take that warning seriously.
      5.30 pm
      If so much can be achieved without using human embryos for the treatment of infertility, why is there such pressure for us to sanction it? Will research using the human embryo up to 14 days—which the Bill provides—reveal the answer? Is embryo research vital to find cures for genetic disease? The plain answer to these two questions is no. It has certainly not been necessary to make vital discoveries for the treatment of cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy, to name but two. My advisers have told me that to pursue research into any of those conditions it is logically obvious to examine cells from adults who have given their consent and who are known to have the disorder, or cells obtained for legitimate reasons from children with the disorder. Such methods would not be fatal and we on the pro-life side—which stretches across all parties—welcome such research. That would be true therapy.
      Mr. David Tredinnick: I am following my right hon. Friend's argument with interest, but I find it mystifying that the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal Society should support such research. Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House how it is that his views and theirs are diametrically opposed?
      Sir Bernard Braine: If I had more time, I would give my right hon. Friend and the Committee a list of the distinguished advisers whom we have attracted from every branch of medicine. Most of them are professors emeritus. They include Professor Hubert Campbell, emeritus professor of medical statistics at the Welsh National School of Medicine, Dr. McLean, to whom I have already referred, Professor Sir John Dewhurst, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Queen Charlotte's hospital, Dr. Jarmulowicz, lecturer in histopathology, at the Royal Free hospital school in London and Professor John Marshall, emeritus professor of clinical neurology at the university of London who signed a minority report.
      We should remember that the Warnock committee was not unanimous—it was split—and Professor Marshall, a distinguished neurologist, one of the most famous in the world, took a contrary view, coming out against experimentation. I cannot answer why it is possible for the pro-life movement to attract some of the most distinguished, internationally known and respected figures while the royal colleges and other bodies take a different view, although I could hazard a guess.
      Ms. Richardson: I have been listening with great care to the right hon. Gentleman, but with respect to the eminent people whom he was quoting, are they carrying out research now or is it not a fact that most of them have retired?
      Sir Bernard Braine: That is a very unworthy remark. Most of them are still active and are highly respected in the world of research. The hon. Lady might care to write to them and find out. I have not quoted the distinguished figures in France, the United States and Australia who also advise us. Just as the Committee is divided, so may be the medical and scientific professions, and that greatly disturbs me. I remember when the German medical profession was sharply divided on certain issues. But for us the buck stops here. It rests not with those learned bodies, but here in this House, and we have to make up our minds.
      Mr. Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Sir Bernard Braine: No. I shall not give way again, because other hon. Members wish to express their views.
      I have reached some conclusions and I should like to put them to the House. Let me return to my original question. If so much can be achieved without using human embryos in research, why are so many eager to conduct such research? I have a suspicion that I should mention in the House. For the big drug companies, for example, embryo experimentation could unlock the door to unlimited riches and provide the means of finding the perfect contraceptive. Even the Warnock committee concluded that there might be a case for allowing human embryos to be used for drug testing—subject, of course, to scrutiny by a licensing body. However, that committee was not unanimous. Professor John Marshall and two other members of the Warnock committee made it quite clear in their minority report that human embryos should not be subjected to such experiments.
      Where will the experimenters get sufficient eggs to fertilise for their research? Tens of thousands will be needed to provide sufficient for research projects. Of necessity, that would require the use of super-ovulatory drugs, to be given to women to produce more eggs than the one that is part of their normal cycle. IVF practitioners have already expressed concern that fertility drug regimes led to the production of immature or abnormal ova and caused disturbance of the inner wall of the womb, which would make it difficult for the embryo to implant.
      I am making a serious charge, and I should like to hear someone responsible in Government address the matter. I am advised that the use of such drugs can cause serious problems for women. It is no more than treating women, as well as the human embryos used in the research, as guinea pigs. Will women waiting for IVF treatment or sterilisation be encouraged to donate their eggs and use such drugs with promises of being moved up the waiting list if they agree? Let us be given an answer to that by the scientists and let the Minister tell the House just what the Government have in mind.
      Let it not be said that talk of egg and embryo banks is futuristic and hysterical, as was the suggestion behind some of the interventions by my hon. Friends. It emerged at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology conference in 1987 that large numbers of frozen human embryos were stockpiled at IVF centres in Britain, France and Australia, and at least one delegate predicted that embryos would be marketed.
      The Bill is so phrased in clause 14(1)(b) that it would allow the trading of gametes or human embryos between licensed persons, even if they were not needed for treatment services. What does that mean? Let Ministers explain that horrendous inclusion in the Bill, if they can.

      53
      Those of us in the pro-life movement are often accused of certainty about the beginning of life and its value whereas others are not quite so sure. We have heard an example of that from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon. While I do not believe that such certainty is mistaken, what approach should the House take? I believe that the safest, most reasonable and most moral course to take is to say no to destructive experimentation. Why do I say that? Because, surely, if there is any reasonable doubt about the status of the human embryo, we should give it the benefit of the doubt. The human embryo has an overwhelming call upon our conscience and duty.
      We have heard a great deal recently about the views of the Archbishop of York, but he does not speak for the majority of Christians. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Shame."] He does not. The Anglican Bishop of Peterborough does not support the Archbishop of York. I should like to quote him and I should like the House to weigh his words carefully. He said:
      "I have always taken the view that when in doubt it is safer to say no. Those who would seek change must discharge the full burden of proof and that they have not done."
      Those who favour experimentation have not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the human embryo is not a human being. They have tried to cloak the fact that it is a human being by calling it a pre-embryo. We had an example of that this afternoon. Perhaps the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) will tell the House in which dictionary she found that term. Words such as pre-embryo and conceptus——
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Sir Bernard Braine: Although I do not wish to give way in the middle of a sentence, I shall give way.
      Mrs. Gorman: On a point of information, the term pre-embryo was coined by the voluntary authority in order to establish the presence of a cell mass before it begins to differentiate. That is why the term was established.
      Sir Bernard Braine: That body has no real status. The Secretary of State told us so this afternoon. It invented the term precisely in order to confuse, as the hon. Member should know. There is no such thing as a pre-embryo in medical terms. After this debate it may begin to find its way into medical dictionaries, but it is not there now. These are changes in nomenclature, not in fact.
      Finally, we have been regaled with promises of what embryo experimentation might achieve in terms of advances in the treatment of genetic diseases and infertility treatment but nowhere, and at no time, has the experimentation lobby proved beyond reasonable doubt that the subject is not a human being. Indeed, it would not want the embryo if it were not human and did not have the innate capacity to develop as a human being. It would be of no use. It concedes its own case by referring to human embryos to distinguish them from animal embryos. The case for experimentation is no more than a cruel deception with false hopes constantly being paraded to encourage supporters to its side.
      One must have some humility in trying to resolve this question. The overwhelming number of scientists in this country and elsewhere are highly motivated in an honourable quest for improvement in the human condition. Several have said to me—it is right to speak
      54
      frankly and openly—"Surely we should have learnt something from the descent of Nazi medicine into awfulness, when some doctors claimed that it did not matter how they acquired knowledge because the end justified the means." I mention that not in order to excite passions but deliberately. With that awful example before it, it is not surprising that the German Parliament has just banned such research. Perhaps awareness of what was done by perverted science remains stronger there than here.
      What then is the only responsible course of action open to this Committee and this House? It is surely to give the human embryo the benefit of the doubt and to vote for a ban on research.
      Mr. Duffy: The vital decisions that we reach tonight on human fertilisation and embryology and tomorrow on pregnancy termination must affect how we regard. the status of each individual, his or her human rights, the treatment of the handicapped and the fate of the senile and terminally ill. Therefore, we must proceed with the greatest care.
      Embryo research is complex and involves a spectrum of medical, scientific, ethical and moral issues. It also abounds in myths and partial truths, as I said on Second Reading. For example, like the Father of the House, I invited hon. Members present then who were in favour of human embryo research to give the House one example of what has been discovered in research into genetic diseases that could not have been discovered in any other way. I now invite hon. Members present who believe that scientists need human embryos for worthwhile research to explain why the practice has been forbidden in Denmark, Ireland, Norway and Portugal, as well as parts of Australia, as the Father of the House reminded us. It is also soon to be forbidden in West Germany. They should also tell us why the European Council of Ministers has recommended the same course of action.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Robert Key: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, that says more about the politicians in those countries than about the scientists. It speaks volumes about the ignorance and timidity of the politicians. It does not stop the scientists from benefiting from the research done in this country and all round the world.
      Mr. Duffy: That intervention will be judged by hon. Members present on its merits. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for whom I have the greatest respect and whose important speech on Second Reading I remember, will regret those remarks on reflection.
      The only response that I received at the end of my speech on Second Reading was from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I gave him notice that I would raise this matter. He began his speech—with a little relieved support from some of my hon. Friends by—saying:
      "My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) will understand that some of us were pained and distressed by his speech."—[Official Report, 2 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 976.]
      I pressed him later to explain what parts of my speech had distressed him, as did some of my hon. Friends, and I have written to him, but so far I have received no response.

      55
      Even though the score of pro-research versus anti-research speeches from the Back Benches on Second Reading was 11 each, my distinct impression was that those against research had the better of the argument. That is remarkable. Those of us who have tried to follow the topic closely as it has developed over the winter since it was debated in another place were struck by the deluge of one-sided publicity, not only this weekend in quality Sunday newspapers or on behalf of one programme in one hospital or one individual. Despite that one-sided treatment in the media, it must be clear to anyone who reads the Official Report of 2 April that hon. Members who spoke in favour of research were put on the defensive.
      I shall illustrate that by recalling that debate briefly. I shall touch on some of the highlights, and if two have already been touched on by the Father of the House, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me. The Secretary of State claimed then, as he did this afternoon, that an embryo was not a human being. Yet, if the embryo were not human or alive and did not have the built-in capacity to grow and develop to birth, why should the experimenters want it?
      It was also claimed then, and again this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), that it is not an embryo until 14 days after conception and that until then it is a pre-embryo. Yet, as the Father of the House reminded us, the term "pre-embryo" cannot be found in any reputable source of reference or medical dictionary. Furthermore, we are entitled to ask those who still attach significance to 14 days, "Fourteen days into what?" If it is not 14 days into life, what is it 14 days into?
      On Second Reading, it was claimed that embryo research was needed to improve the success of IVF, and the low take-home baby rate was quoted. Several centres are climbing the learning curve and achieving substantially greater success rates. One such is the Sheffield fertility centre. I shall quote a public reference to a report so that hon. Members can consult it, but they will expect me to have been at pains to consult privately. On 6 February, The Daily Telegraph stated of the centre:
      "Here the emphasis is on IVF the natural way, using the one egg normally produced. Drugs are used only in rare cases, when women do not ovulate."
      The latest results
      "show that one in four women who finally receive an embryo become pregnant, although not all run to term. There is no risk of multiple births, overstimulated ovaries, or spare embryos. With no drugs, the cost is considerably lower."
      I understand that the university of Sheffield's infertility clinic at the Jessop hospital for women runs a natural cycle programme with emphasis on developing a follicle without excessive stimulation, so there is only one follicle and only one embryo. That does away with many of the ethical problems about spare embryos.
      I have discussed the programme with its head, Professor I. D. Cooke, and without associating him even remotely with any responsibility for my remarks, I wish to put on record my appreciation of his dedication and motivation, and of the quality and direction of his work. Contrary to the impression that we could not fail to have during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, work in this field is not confined to Hammersmith.
      56
      It is important to make a clear distinction between non-invasive research on embryos which are to be implanted, which is ethically acceptable, and destructive research, in which the embryo is destroyed. This takes us to the heart of the debate. That is the issue. As I reminded the Secretary of State earlier this evening, where the major obstacles to IVF have been overcome, is it not logical that the most valuable data would come from non-invasive research? Yet, on Second Reading, several hon. Members claimed, first, that a ban on embryo research would stop all IVF, secondly that IVF success rates could not improve without research, and thirdly, that halting embryo experiments would leave infertile couples untreated.
      In all countries which have outlawed embryo research, IVF programmes continue unhindered. The Father of the House told us that the results in Victoria and South Australia are on a par with, if not better than, those anywhere in the world. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—I note that he is no longer in his place, but he will not mind my mentioning him—pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on Second Reading, IVF success rates depend more on the experience of the clinicians and the number of treatment cycles than on the benefits of research. There are alternatives to IVF, notably microsurgery, which has a far higher success rate. The Secretary of State stressed the growing value of gene therapy.
      On Second Reading we heard the oft-repeated claim that embryo research is needed to treat and eliminate congenital and inherited diseases. That is not even claimed by Progress and its campaign newspaper. True prevention means avoiding conception of a child with a disorder, and one way of achieving that is to test eggs before fertilisation. I am advised that, recently, human eggs have been successfully tested for genetic disease. Indeed, the only research projects in which scientists are seeking genuine cures for genetic diseases are being done without the use of human embryos. I understand that they are making realistic advances.
      During the past few years, great advances have been made in the treatment of genetic and chromosomal diseases, without the use of human embryos. Even since the Bill started its passage through Parliament, articles have appeared in medical journals almost weekly, reporting advances in molecular biology without the use of human embryos and realistic claims of true treatment of genetic disease. In many important respects, the Warnock report is now out of date. It would be interesting to see the outcome if the Committee were to sit now.
      Both my hon. Friends the Members for Barking and Peckham suggested that, if embryo research were banned, the testing of embryos for genetic defects would stop. That is not true. Even if embryo research is banned, schedule 2(1)(d) will allow the screening of embryos for genetic defects before implantation, whether or not one agrees with the practice. It is also untrue for newspapers to claim that the sex selection technique which was announced late last week will be stopped by a vote against embryo experimentation. Under the same schedule, screening is permitted. It is also untrue to claim that only the use of human embryos allows such a development. There are several ways in which such a technique could be developed far more effectively.
      I stress that we are not discussing whether research per se is good or bad. We all plainly favour scientific research,

      57
      without which there would be no progress for the benefit of mankind. Tonight we are deciding whether to permit destructive research on embryos for the first 14 days or to insist the nothing shall he done to an embryo, except for its own good. We must also decide on the production of spare embryos, the donation of eggs, sperm and/or embryos by persons outside the marital relationship of the proposed child's parents, the storage—for example, the freezing—of embryos as well as adequate monitoring, even within a statutory framework.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham has argued that the 14-day limit represents such a significant break point in human development that it will act as an anchor and prevent any drift beyond the agreed limit. How many hon. Members share such optimism? It is not the view of those working in the field. To take just one example, Professor Bob Edwards, the world's pioneer of the IVF technique, is on record as saying recently:
      "rules like that cannot be made about embryology, which is a gradual process of steady change."
      I suspect that some hon. Members would support research if they could be sure that it would be strictly controlled.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: I raised this point on Second Reading and raise it again because it constantly worries me. If we accept the thesis that research is valuable to the human condition, as I do, and that it cannot be finite and stopped, for example, on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday or on the ninth, 10th, 11th or 14th day, by what standards and at what stage will we decide how that research will develop? I firmly believe that sooner or later we shall have a Bill to amend the 14-day limit. That is the weakness. Otherwise, the argument in favour of research is defeated, because it is to say that research is finite and can stop on a certain day.
      6 pm
      Mr. Duffy: I entirely share the fears and reservations expressed by my hon. Friend. The activity will be notoriously difficult to monitor.
      It is interesting that the German Government should be taking such a strong line on embryonic research. Yet the German Bill has been criticised by the German SPD, the Social Democratic party—for the benefit of some of my hon. Friends they are our socialist colleagues in Germany—on the grounds that it does not go far enough in protecting the embryo or in controlling the enthusiasm of doctors and researchers.
      The Germans know how easily a compassionate impulse can be translated into a holocaust. That is well illustrated by Frederick Wertham in his deeply disturbing book, "A Sign for Cain", by the manner in which the acceptance in the Weimar republic of euthanasia as an enlightened and estimable practice provided the original justification in the Third Reich for some of the horrors that were to follow.
      On Second Reading, I described how some mothers have found a special joy in caring for their disabled children. None of us can have visited such children and their parents without feeling happy and uplifted. Nevertheless, in terms of the quality of life, there would seem to be little reason for allowing the birth of such children, but the same reasoning applies to the infirm and the senile old. Nowadays, society as a whole is not well disposed towards the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, or the responsibility of the individual.
      58
      In terms of the sanctity of life, the situation is quite different. There are things that one must not do to humans, simply because they are human. Conception lies at the root of morality and it is the only possible answer to those who think that the end can always justify the means. When one poses questions about such basic principles to the medical establishment, one generally receives nothing but the slipperiest or replies. One is invited to distinguish the embryo from the pre-embryo, or told that life does not really begin until the third week. On what basis, then, do we decide that a person should not be allowed to be born or that another person should not be allowed to go on living? On what basis does one decide that a disabled child has no right to be born or to live?
      Contrary to the closing remarks of the Secretary of State, I believe that the choice lies between the quality of life and the sanctity of life. Which side are we on? We cannot, no matter how hard we try, be on both sides; the Secretary of State tried, but he did not succeed. Are we on the side that inevitably means keeping down our numbers so that we all get ever more affluent, or are we or the side of the sanctity of life with mankind as a family—not equal, but brothers and sisters whose father is God, in whose image we are all made? I am for the latter, and I am confident of its ultimate triumph.
      Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said that it was difficult to monitor embryo research, and I should like to start by congratulating the voluntary licensing authority, now the interim licensing authority, on monitoring such difficult research and on establishing the confidence that the research carried out in this country satisfies the requirements for which the House is looking.
      Research work is being done in many centres—38 have been approved and another 12 are subject to approval. There are thus about 50 centres for clinical and research work, and 64 different projects have been authorised since 1985. Such work represents a unique British institution, and other Parliaments around the world are watching us to see how we deal with this matter and how we introduce legislation that satisfies all of us, including those few already mentioned who are strongly opposed to research.
      Those people are in the minority. The opinion poll recently conducted by National Opinion Polls, which contacted 981 people, showed that only 57 were strongly opposed to research on any grounds. We must remember that we are dealing with a minority, but we want to find legislation that will satisfy them.
      We should congratulate Mary Donaldson and the committee of the licensing authority on their work in establishing firm guidelines.
      Mr. Alton: I must intervene before the hon. Gentleman's comment about a supposedly true and accurate opinion poll is embedded in Hansard. Once again, I must repeat what has already been said—there is probably no one in the House opposed to research. People are opposed to destructive experimentation on the human embryo. A question about such experimentation was not asked in that opinion poll.
      Mr. Thurnham: That has already been dealt with. A number of embryos are spare as a result of treatment, but I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would rather that they perish than provide any useful purpose.

      59
      I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the licensing authority has worked well, and we must congratulate it on carrying out the major recommendations of the Warnock committee report. When it was published in 1984, we looked forward to the establishment of a licensing authority and to the debate in this House to establish the statutory grounds for that authority. The voluntary licensing authority has laid a firm basis upon which a statutory body can be established to carry out the requirements of the House.
      A number of arguments have been advanced against research; I should like to deal with them one by one. The principal argument against such research is that one is dealing with an individual human being from the very moment of fertilisation. In the first few days, however, that is not so: one is dealing with a cluster of undifferentiated cells that do not acquire their individuality until later. Those cells are capable of dividing and coming together again.
      It is that very point that has exercised the minds of moral theologians. I am satisfied with the arguments that have been advanced by the Archbishop of York and by Catholic theologians such as Jack Mahoney, Kevin Kelly and Norman Ford. They argue that one cannot talk about individuality until about the 14th day. As to the Christian view, I was pleased to learn from a letter from the Venerable Bill Brison, the Archdeacon of Bolton, that he agrees with such embryo research.
      Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman has, once again, referred to Norman Ford, but I must refer him to his letter which appeared in The Tablet two months ago. Then, he said that, because there were doubts about the beginnings of life, one must always err on the side of that doubt.
      Mr. Thurnham: If such doubts exist, why should we send doctors to prison? If there is doubt, those doctors should continue with their good work. They should not have their worked stopped by being sent to prison. Will we improve the health of our nation by sending those doctors to prison?
      It has been argued that the limit of 14 days is the slippery slope. I believe that that time limit is a practical one, as that is the stage at which the primitive streak appears and the growing cells start to acquire individuality. It is a natural time limit to choose, as a woman does not know she is pregnant until the embryo has reached its 14th day. We should not forget that those women who use IUD coils and pills lose millions of embryos before the 14th day. Those embryos are not regarded as human beings in the same way as we would regard those that become fully developed persons.
      An embryo or pre-embryo can only be kept alive in a test tube for a few days. It is not possible to keep it alive in a test tube beyond the ninth day, and I understand that most of them die within the first six or seven days. The 14-day limit is way beyond any period during which embryos are used for experimentation.
      Mr. Mallon rose——
      Mr. Thurnham: Some people say that they favour IVF babies, but oppose research. I agree with the Archbishop
      60
      of York that that is an immoral argument. The IVF treatment would not be available if it was not for the good work carried out by Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend has said that hon. Members are opposed to research but in favour of IVF. Let me repeat that many hon. Members who will vote against the research outlined in the Bill are in favour of research provided that an embryo is used for implantation in order to grow into an individual—we are not against research per se.
      Mr. Thurnham: That is absolute nonsense. If my hon. Friend spoke to Professor Edwards—unfortunately, Patrick Steptoe is no longer with us—he would tell him that it was necessary for them to carry out more than 300 experiments before the first test-tube baby in the world was born.
      Louise Brown would not be with us today as a healthy child if it were not for those 300 experiments. It is absolute bunkum to say that one is in favour of the babies, but not of the research that brought them about. This country leads the world in this work; the excellent work done in Hammersmith hospital and elsewhere is a great tribute to the excellence of British scientists and their common sense in carrying on with this work and not believing that it was wrong and they should not do it. That is supported by public opinion polls. Poll after poll after poll shows that the public support that work. In the latest opinion poll, 85 per cent. of the public were in favour of IVF babies who result from research work.
      Another argument is that the process is unnecessary because, if one sits and thinks long enough, one will come up with the answers, and if one does have to do research work, it can be done on animals or gametes. Much work is done on mice. One of the guidelines for the licensing authority is that research should not be allowed unless it cannot be done on animals. Only then can it be done with human embryos. Mice eggs can be used to show that freezing is possible, but so far it has not proved possible to keep human eggs by freezing them. That is one sector in which more research is needed.
      It has been shown that some diseases in mice—Lesch-Nyham syndrome, for example—can be cured, but so far it has proved impossible to do such work with humans. That is another example which shows that research must be done with human embryos, not just animal embryos.
      The argument about using gametes does not stand up. The Medical Research Council says that that is ethically unacceptable. It shows the need for further work to test fertilisation and develop contraceptives, where it must be possible to test the embryos or to carry out procedures that will give rise to embryos if we are to obtain the answers we need.
      Another argument is that we should not trust the doctors, and that they are all divided. Someone said that they were almost equally divided. That is not true: more than 90 per cent. of the doctors in the world, according to Professor Martin Bobrow—a leading geneticist at Guy's hospital—are in favour of research. Only a minority are against it, and I suspect that, if they are Catholics, they have been put in a difficult position by the attitude taken by the Pope and the Vatican. I suspect that that lies behind

      61
      the objections of most of the scientists whom I have come across. It is unfortunate that the Catholic Church should have put some scientists in that position.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) talked about this being a search-and-destroy mission, and said that there were no cures. The natural process leads to the rejection of embryos if something is wrong. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, there is a high failure rate and a high rejection rate—as high as 50 per cent.—among humans. This is a natural process, and I do not understand what is wrong in helping where nature may fail to reject those embryos that will not lead to healthy babies. It is totally wrong for a mother to be forced to go through with a pregnancy or face an abortion at a later stage if she could have such treatment.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): A great many hon. Members feel some anxiety about the proposition that one should interfere, but a massive amount of interference has already been entered into, with the result that large numbers of children and foetuses who would never have been able to survive in the past, survive with appalling conditions. Therefore, we are not talking about a level playing field, but a process which, having already been begun, must be counteracted by further work.
      Mr. Thurnham: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. At present, about 2,000 abortions are carried out each year on grounds of foetal abnormality, but still 20,000 children are born every year with some sort of congenital handicap. Half the most severe cases—category 10—end up in institutions because their families are unable to look after them. Those people who are so concerned about the dignity and sanctity of life, and oppose this research, should do more to look after such children, rather than turn their backs on them and leave them in institutions.
      The argument that this process is a matter of unfair discrimination against the handicapped is one of the cruellest I have heard. To suggest that we should want handicapped people or that a mother would want to give birth to a handicapped child is completely wrong. All mothers would prefer to have a healthy child; it is wrong to suggest that anyone would want to enter this world with a handicap. I am sure that Beethoven or anyone else suffering from a handicap would have preferred to be healthy. We should do all that we can to help to bring about healthy people and not revel in people's handicaps.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that to those of my constituents—a number of whom have approached me—who would have much have preferred that their children had been born without handicaps, but strongly believed that they had no right to deprive them of life because they were handicapped?
      Mr. Thurnham: Those children who have been born with handicaps deserve all the love and care that we can give them. However, we surely do not want more children to be born with handicaps than we can help, and we should help mothers to have choice. Surely this is a matter of choice and we should allow families to choose, so that where there are serious genetic disorders—I have heard some most distressing cases of families with severe genetic disorders—we should allow choice. Research would allow
      62
      those people to enjoy marriages in which they can look forward to producing chidren free of such dreadful diseases.
      Some people have said that screening would not work, but I point to the examples in Cyprus and Sardinia, where the severe illness Thalassaemia major—a form of anaemia—has been almost eliminated by screening the population. In this country, one in 20 people has the cystic fibrosis gene. It is possible that in future we shall be able to offer screening so that people who want to be free from the risk of carrying the cystic fibrosis gene to future generations can be given a test to discover whether it is likely.
      The cost to the National Health Service, in financial terms, let alone human misery, has been estimated by the Royal College of Physicians as £86 million a year for many of the leading genetic diseases. Therefore, on financial grounds alone, there is a strong argument for some element of screening. It is a matter of chance for most of us. On average, we carry some six defective genes out of 100,000 different genes in our bodies. It is a matter of chance whether we meet a partner who has the same gene, so that our children are at risk of a serious genetic disorder.
      It has also been said that only a few people would benefit, and hard cases might make bad law. That is appalling. The work of the Genetic Interest Group, which has already been mentioned, should be thoroughly supported and we should not turn our backs on a small minority of people—however small—because of the severity of their difficulties. We should do all we can to help them and produce legislation to allow research to continue.
      A good feature of this debate is that we have been able to hear those arguments from the minorities affected. Five years ago, when Enoch Powell, the former right hon. Member for South Down, brought in his Bill which would have banned all research and allowed a couple to have a test-tube baby only with written permission from the Secretary of State, we did not hear such arguments. It is not easy for people suffering from a genetic disease to come forward. They are not likely to parade down the street saying that they want the research to be allowed. If they are one of the one in 10 couples suffering from infertility, are they likely to march to Parliament in huge lobbies? They have come, but it is not easy for such people to do so.
      Recently, I was pleased to receive a petition from my constituents, Steven and Beverley Crook, which had a number of signatures in favour of research, because the couple found that they needed it. People are coming forward, but we must recognise that it is not easy to do so. That couple told me that they had not even been able to tell their relatives about the need for their treatment until quite a late stage. It is not easy for couples to discuss it among themselves, let alone make it public.
      I am appalled to hear some of the arguments advanced against research. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said that infertility arose only when people were sexually promiscuous, and therefore there was no need for research.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I object to that slur. What I said in a debate was that two of the main causes of infertility were due to life style. That is a fact; it does not mean that I consider that all infertile couples have behaved in such a

      63
      way. I have friends who are infertile. The hon. Gentleman has sunk to rock bottom to raise something like that in this debate.
      Mr. Thurnham: It was my hon. Friend who raised that point. In 85 per cent. of infertility cases, there is no evidence of any infection. Even if there is, we should not deny those people the treatment they deserve as much as anyone else.
      It is not true that IVF leads to increased deaths and handicaps. We heard some figures about that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Castlepoint, but the latest figures show that major congenital handicaps between 1979 and 1988 were 2·2 per cent. overall, exactly the same as for the population in general. I understand that the figures for spina bifida are much lower, so although IVF presents difficulties associated with multiple births, the record for single births is extremely good. We should all be glad that Louise Brown was born healthy; had she been unfortunate enough to be handicapped in some way, many people would have said that all the research work should stop.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I have been listening with care to my hon. Friend, who I know speaks with great sincerity. He believes in the efficacy of embryo research for IVF and he claimed that we had the best record in the world. Will be address himself to the fact that, in South Australia, where embryo experimentation has been banned, the IVF success rate is higher than here? What is the explanation for that?
      Mr. Thurnham: My right hon. Friend should be careful not to mislead himself. Success rates must be carefully examined——
      Mrs. Gorman rose——
      Mr. Thurnham: If success rates relate only to women in their most fertile stages, greater success can obviously be obtained than in places where patients who are desperate and who may have passed the age of 40—when a woman's natural fertility is reduced—are being treated. If many of the hospitals in this country attempt to treat women who are reaching the end of their naturally fertile period, it is less likely that they will enjoy such high success rates. However, if my right hon. Friend compares the latest figures over a proper period, he will find that we are indeed successful in this country. The Australian state in which no research is taking place has nothing to teach us, because the doctors have had to rely on obtaining their information from elsewhere.
      Mr. James Couchman: Is it not true, in the context of the much-vaunted success rates in South Australia, that non-destructive research has not been banned, and that the success rates there are in any case no higher than here? Are they not a myth perpetrated by those who want research banned?
      Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the success rates of IVF, which is as yet an imperfect procedure, are still very low, and that, if we ban research, progress will be frozen in aspic and the rates will remain very low?
      Mr. Thurnham: Yes, it is important to try to improve success rates. We should remember that other states in Australia have brought in legislation to allow research
      64
      because they know how important it is. In Victoria and elsewhere, such work is permitted, and no doubt the doctors in South Australia where research has been banned use the benefits of such research. It is immoral to refuse to do research but to take advantage of the benefits of research carried out by other people.
      It has been argued that the drug companies are investing millions of pounds in developing contraceptive drugs. There is only one such project in this country—in Scotland—but it is much-needed work which will help people in the Third world, where there is certainly no shortage of people. I would favour developing improved contraceptive methods by this means, subject to the guidelines of the statutory licensing authority.
      We have heard much scare talk about hybrids, clones and designer babies, but such talk comes from people who do not understand the limitations of the work, and these ideas are strictly banned by the guidelines which have so far been adhered to voluntarily and which, if the Bill is pased, will have statutory force when the licensing authority is set up. They remain in the science fiction arena.
      Hon. Members have criticised the use of the word "pre-embryo". Anyone would think that we were not allowed to invent new words in science. New descriptions are being developed in science all the time, and if the word "pre-embryo" could be used to describe the stage up to 14 days, I would find that helpful. I strongly condemn the use of the words "babies" and "children" by those on the other side of this argument, not to mention stunts such as sending out plastic foetuses, which have caused enormous offence to people in the House. I saw secretaries in the Post Office this morning in considerable distress, surrounded by these things. It was a stunt in the lowest possible taste.
      I hope that I have been able to dispel some of the myths advanced by our opponents. It is true that some countries have banned research—that is most unfortunate—but I do not see why we should take lessons in morality from the Germans. I know that many other countries are looking to us to see what sort of legislation they should introduce. We should not forget that the United States, Canada, Italy, Holland, Belgium and France encourage research, and Spain and Sweden have already passed laws that will enable this work to proceed as we should like it to.
      I should like to thank you, Sir Paul, for the opportunity to speak in the debate and, I hope, to make a constructive argument in favour of continuing with legislation that will allow research and of rejecting the amendments.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I have been reading a great deal of material in preparation for the debate and I wish that I had had time to do more research as far back as 100 years ago, when hon. Gentleman in this House were telling Queen Victoria that they positively knew that God was against the use of painkillers when giving birth—advice that she rightly rejected. But other women at that time could have taken that advice and refused painkillers when giving birth. Such refusal now would be supported by only a tiny minority.
      I make this point not in a frivolous spirit but to show that hon. Members are not qualified to advise on ethical and moral questions. Our responsibility is to frame the law in such a way as to make it possible for other adults to make their own decisions. I do not understand how hon.

      65
      Members can say, merely because they are convinced that life begins at a particular stage, that they should impose their decision on others.
      It should be up to people to make up their own minds about whether to act on the opportunities that this research opens up. If they are against such research, they need not benefit from it. I have heard it argued that childless couples should accept their misfortune—that it is God's will that they be childless, so they must live with that. That is fine if they are convinced that it is God's will, but if they are convinced that God's will is nothing of the sort, and if they see that researchers can provide them with some hope by using their God-given intelligence, they should be able to choose to act on that.
      The same goes for the risk of giving birth to children who will suffer appallingly from severe and painful handicaps. It might be said that couples should cope as best they can, or avoid having children. The choice to avoid having children will still be open to those who believe that research at this stage of human development is wrong; but there are others who believe that God gave humans intelligence that can be used to create human happiness or misery. Many of the researchers themselves, far from feeling that they are doing something wicked, can believe only that they are doing positive good when they witness the happiness that they are bringing to the lives of people who suffer from these terrible problems.
      It is up to the House to show some understanding. Earlier, the Father of the House said, "The buck stops here." I disagree: it does not stop in Parliament. It stops with men and women who are desperate for children but will not have them unless we allow this research to continue. The buck stops with the parents who may already have severely handicapped children, or whose children may have died after brief, painful lives. They may want the chance to have a child who is well.
      We are not talking about perfecting human beings or about some sort of genetic engineering to create a perfect race. We are merely talking about the simple desire on the part of someone who has brought up and cared for a child day after day through severe illness to be given the small human happiness involved in having more children who will not suffer from the same defects.
      I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I feel very deeply about the problems that have been described in numerous letters sent to me by parents. I shall outline some cases. One child a week is born with tuberous sclerosis, which affects one in 8,000 of the population. It is caused by a dominant gene defect and its effect varies widely. It produces incomplete differentiation of embryonic tissue and clumps of embryonic cells do not change totally into brain or kidney or skin or any other part of the body, which is what normally takes place. They continue to grow slowly and produce tumours in any organ of the body. They produce epilepsy and other such problems. Some 50 per cent. of the children will be severely mentally handicapped with an IQ of below 35. We are talking not about children who can almost cope with normal life and who just need a little help, but about children who can do nothing for themselves.
      Sometimes there is too much easy sentimentality in the House about everyone being in favour of helping the handicapped. That is not real life. I know many people with handicaps that are nothing like as severe as the one that I have described, who feel that they receive very little
      66
      help from society and from the House when it has the opportunity to spend public money on all sorts of necessities to help handicapped people to live a fuller life. We must recognise that some handicaps are so severe that no quality of life can be gained and the person who is suffering has a limited and extremely painful life that is often extremely short.
      6.30 pm
      I could describe numerous illnesses that I had not even heard of before the debate came into public view a few years ago. There are more than 200 different diseases with long Latin names that all produce terrible suffering in children. The Bill is designed to create circumstances in which steps can be taken to try to ensure that a defective gene is not implanted, which will give mothers a chance to produce children with normal health. Such research can be used to help childless people to achieve that very simple and highly desirable human aim. Those of us who easily and without problems have had healthy children should attempt to show a bit of understanding and be ready to help those who have problems.
      Mr. Michael Alison: I am grateful to you, Sir Paul, for giving me this opportunity to put on record why I shall vote in favour of amendment No. 1 and against the authorisation of research into human embryos. In spite of the apparent technical complexity of the matter, the fundamental issue is clear-cut and straightforward. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health highlighted that primary consideration.
      The simple issue is at what point in the interaction between the ovum and the sperm human life begins. Once human life has begun, leaving aside for a moment when it begins, and even if it is embryonic, can any form of experimentation on the material substance of that human life at any stage be either ethical or acceptable if it is not intended for the well-being, good and survival of that form of human life, however embryonic and elemental it may be?
      I do not think that many, if any, hon. Members favour experiments on a guinea-pig basis, compulsorily sacrificing one human life for the benefit of another or more than one human life. Reference has been made to the horrific conclusions to which that road can lead. The issue turns simply on when human life begins in the sperm-ovum interaction. All questions about the merits, benefits or desirability of experiments must in principle be subordinate to that question and cannot be addressed until we have a conclusion on that fundamental issue.
      I am profoundly convinced, on the evidence that I have studied, that human life starts at the moment of fertilisation. I know that that is a personal view. To those who differ from that view and who believe that human life starts a bit later, I point out right away the smallness of the time gap that divides us. At the very most, it is only 14 days into the growth of the embryo. After that no one has any doubt that a form of human life has emerged that is inviolable and sacrosanct. It is worth reminding ourselves how remote from our normal idea of human life is that entity to which we grant without question an inviolable or sacrosanct status. It is almost invisible and almost inperceptible. It is difficult to say in respect of that struggling embryonic form of elemental life, which we call human and individual at 14 days, that it is not possible for it to have had an even earlier real existence from thy one.

      67
      If there is any doubt at all about the human status of the fertilised ovum by the sperm from day one, the benefit of that doubt should be given to the potential human individual who came into existence in some shape or form at the moment of fertilisation. It is not a rebuttal of that view to say that the fertilised ovum has to undergo further development and differentiation of the sort referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he suggested that human cells continue to develop and divide so that, for example, the placenta differentiates itself from the human individual during the first 14 days. It is not a convincing or even likely thesis to say that that determines the emergence of human life only at the moment of final differentiation before the 14th day. I shall give an illustration, although I know that an analogy is dangerous.
      Peeling the skin from an orange does not bring the life of an orange into existence. It brings the life of the orange into evidence or identifiability. The orange was there below the peel. I am convinced that that which is in evidence as a human embryo at day 14 is in existence from the moment of fertilisation. It is not in evidence, not identifiable, but it is there just as the orange is below the peel. I know that that is an arguable proposition and that it has been debated in the House. My overriding point is that if there is any doubt about whether the orange exists below the peel, whether the embryo exists before final differentiation takes place on day 14, the benefit of the doubt must, in principle, be given to the embryonic human individual who has been imperceptible, invisible and not in evidence but essentially, logically and potentially there from the moment of fertilisation. Leaving aside the merit or otherwise of experimentation, because I am convinced that human life begins at fertilisation, I shall be voting against experimentation on that form of human life, however embryonic and imperceptible, that has emerged at the moment of fertilisation.
      Therefore, I shall be supporting the amendment and voting against the authorisation of experiments.
      Mr. Mallon: This has been one of the most difficult debates for which to prepare for a considerable time. The debate has shown clearly that we all have the same problem. We have all read the same briefing documents, some of which are excellent. We have all read the same statistics, we have all put our own gloss on the statistics and we have all made our value judgments about the opinions of eminent scientists and medical people and those professionals to whom we should all listen. In effect, we are making a value judgment on the value judgments presented to us by other people. We are all trying to assess the arguments for and against something on which many people believe there simply are no arguments.
      I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who crystallised the view of many hon. Members. Those views are held not only by those of a certain religious persuasion. I found jarring the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) that Catholics did not pass the cricket test on this issue. He may wish to withdraw that suggestion after he reads Hansard tomorrow, because people of various religious persuasions see this problem from many points of view.
      68
      I shall be brief. I shall not draw any conclusions from the statistics, nor shall I make a value judgment on whether those doctors or scientists in favour of experimentation have more expertise or are more reliable than those against it, because that is a false argument that will lead to a false conclusion. It would also be a presumptive conclusion for anyone to draw.
      Like the right hon. Member for Selby, I believe that, once fertilisation takes place, we are dealing with a human entity and that destructive experimentation on that entity is the destruction of a human being. My views are rooted in that position. If that were not so, I should be faced with a serious problem because I am convinced that research and experimentation are a natural part of the development of the human condition. They are almost an essential part of the development of our lives.
      Researchers could be faced with a traumatic problem if we agreed to this provision. I believe that experimentation provides results and that lessons can be learned from it and that, as experimentation progresses, a bank of information would be developed, but at what stage do experimentation and research stop being productive? At what stage does the scientist cease to gain further information from his research? There cannot be an arbitary decision that, on the 14th day, the information is no longer relevant. Therefore, those involved in research will face serious moral and legal dilemmas.
      Let us assume that a man who is involved in such research and has results from his experiments firmly believes, as a scientist, that he access to a 16-day embryo, he could produce a result that would end genetic problems for thousands of people. What will he do? How will he answer to his conscience and to the law that we might write for him today? I should not like to have to face that problem, because I do not know what my answer would be, despite my ingrained view about the point at which life begins.
      6.45 pm
      That person will have either to stop his research immediately because the law does not allow experiments beyond 14 days, or decide to continue to, and to break the law, in the interests of humanity. If he starts to experiment with a 16-day embryo, will he go on to an 18-day embryo or a 20-day embryo? If we frame the law in this way, such a moral, professional and legal dilemma will be inevitable. Other people will have to face it. We shall not, but we may put them in a trap by what we do today.
      Mr. Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mallon: I shall not give way. I was shown no great generosity by Conservative Members when I tried to intervene earlier.
      Once fertilisation takes place, we are dealing with a human entitly and to destroy it is to destroy part of human life. Setting an arbitrary limit of 14 days in the development of a human entity may act as a bar on research and the benefits from it, rather than helping research. For that reason, we could be unfair to further generations who might benefit from such research and to those who carry it out. Because of that, as well as my fundamental views about human life, I shall be voting for the amendment and against the provision.
      Mr. David Wilshire: However we vote tonight, all of us have one shared experience. We have

      69
      been bombarded in recent weeks by representations from constituents urging us to vote against the Bill. They have given many reasons for their opposition, but one theme has run through those representations—that research is morally wrong. Despite careful thought and study, I reject this view and I shall be voting for research to continue. although I reject the pleas to vote against, I put it on record that I respect the sincerity and the deeply held views of my constituents, and I hope that they respect mine. I accept that they could be right and in return I hope that they, and those who agree with them, can bring themselves to accept that they could be wrong while others are right.
      As others have said, moral absolutes cannot be determined simply by counting the number of letters that we have received for or against. Majority support does not make a right wrong or a wrong right, so the only way that I know to settle this issue for myself is through careful thought and, if one believes in it, through prayer.
      As many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, I shall confine myself to one of the many issues about which I feel strongly. I want to say something about the distress that is being caused by those of the Bill's opponents who regularly claim that someone cannot be a proper Christian unless he or she votes against the Bill. That sort of argument is enormously hurtful and flies in the face of the unavoidable necessity of all theological certainties being channelled through fallible human interpretation. There are those of us whose faith compels us to vote in favour rather than against.
      In recent months, the Bill's opponents have insisted on imposing on us all their approaches and values. I find that entirely unfair and completely unacceptable. Why, for example, should I accept that research is wrong unless I can prove it right? I find research a perfectly normal and natural thing and I see nothing fundamentally wrong with it.
      My approach—I urge it on others for a change—has always been to start from the assumption that research is right and to invite critics to prove it wrong. Those who have contacted me over the past few weeks seem to have deployed three basic groups of argument to try to win the battle. They say that research is unnecessary, that it could lead to unethical activity and that it is theologically evil.
      If we believe that research is a good thing, the "unnecessary" argument cuts no ice. If you start from the assumption that it is right but you do not believe that it is necessary, do not do it. If you believe that it is necessary—there are plenty of experts who think just that—you should carry on.
      I accept that the concern about unethical research has considerable substance. That is why I support strict controls and clear time limits. That is why I should like to serve on the Standing Committee that will consider the rest of the Bill, because that is where the arguments about controls and limits need to be thrashed out in detail.
      That brings me to the third argument—the key argument—against the theological approach. If I as a layman understand the case correctly, it is said that we, because of our humanity, are different from all other life. It is said that our humanity begins at conception, as though at that moment a soul comes fluttering down to enter us. That I simply do not believe. The Bill's opponents, however, are right to ask those of us who speak like that to answer their question, "When does our humanity begin?" They are right to challenge us and to insist that we answer their question.
      70
      I believe that we all start as human material and develop into a human person. I know when it has happened and I know when it has not. For example, all of us in the Chamber are human people, but the human eggs, sperm and pre-embryos that I have seen are not. Somewhere between the pre-embryo and the adult our human consciousness emerges and we become different. In my opinion, it is that difficult bit between the two absolutes that the Bill is all about and where we need to be looking.
      I answer the Bill's moral critics thus: we start as human material, we develop a mind and at the end only the spirit is left. That is my understanding of what St. Paul taught—we are body, mind and spirit. Surely we were given minds to take care of our bodies. Surely the spirit exists to improve our minds. Our humanity, therefore, is a developing progression. It is not a tap that is turned on and off. Thus I see no moral or theological objection to strictly controlled research. Indeed, I see good moral and theological reasons in favour of it. Research offers help to many, and hope to even more. Handled with care and compassion, research could be yet another gift from God.
      Mr. John Fraser: I wish to take part in the debate to rehearse the conflicting interests in my constituency. King's College hospital runs an in vitro fertilisation clinic and it has a relatively high sucess rate. I have been privileged to witness almost all aspects of the operation—the harvesting of eggs, the eggs which have been fertilised and so on. I have received a certain amount of lobbying and I have taken an interest in the work of the hospital. I have seen that work, but on the other hand there is extensive lobbying—not exclusively by Roman Catholics—against the Bill's provisions.
      Were it not for the moral argument, which has been rehearsed, I think that everyone would agree that the Bill is necessary. No one suggests that there should be uncontrolled research. Once we have disposed of the moral argument, therefore, the necessity for the Bill is there.
      How do the opponents advance their arguments to us? At the heart of the central argument is the issue of when life begins and when the soul, as it were, has entered the body. That is a metaphysical matter. A lord of appeal in ordinary said in a case involving a spot-the-ball contest that metaphysics is the art of proving what one believed in the first place by instinct. I am sure that all of us find it difficult to argue a person into or out of what he or she believes on first principles.
      It is difficult to say that once the egg has been fertilised there is no form of life there which is capable of becoming a human being. In a way, the 14-day rule is squeamish. It provides an alibi for saying that things can be done before 14 days that may not be done thereafter. I find it difficult to quarrel with the argument advanced by Roman Catholics and other opponents to the Bill that there is life once fertilisation takes place.
      Let me say, however, that I support the Bill and experimentation. But when it comes to argument about life, I find it a sophisticated argument to try to distinguish between pre-14 days and post-14 days. I understand the argument about the cells beginning to divide in the placenta to produce what will eventually become a foetus. If we argue about whether life is there or not, it is almost incontrovertible that there is a form of life once fertilisation takes place. That is something about which we

      71
      must make our own decision, but I think that the issue was well argued by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
      I do not find attractive some of the arguments advanced by the opponents. They say that they will not tolerate destruction, but in reality they do. If there are a number of fertilised eggs, the eggs that are not to be used for implantation will not be capable of having a viable life and will be destroyed. There is no getting away from that. The argument about destruction does not seem to have much merit in that respect.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said that he would not tolerate the destruction of the embryo. Surely even he is willing to contemplate the destruction of an embryo which has 69 chromosomes, for example, as against 46. When I have examined fertilised eggs under the microscope at King's College hospital, it has not been unusual to find an embryo with 69 chromosomes. Such an embryo could be implanted and it might be capable of growing for six or seven months, only to be aborted by nature itself. I do not think that my hon. Friend is saying that there are no circumstances in which the embryo should be destroyed. At the end of the day, it comes back to the question of morality—when or whether life has begun——
      Mr. Duffy: It is also whether our approach to and treatment of an embryo is in the interests of that embryo—whether it is in the ultimate good of the embryo.
      7 pm
      Mr. Fraser: Clearly, if there is to be experimentation, it cannot be to the benefit of that embryo. It is for the benefit of other embryos and other people. We cannot dodge that.
      I can find no argument that sustains itself, other than the argument about life. The opponents of research are prepared to compromise on other matters and will tolerate destruction under certain circumstances.
      I represent a multiracial constituency. Many people of Caribbean or African origin have sickle cell anaemia children. It is a genetic disease and it requires two people carrying the appropriate genes to produce a sickle cell anaemia child. Many such people would prefer to have the opportunity to choose whether to have a child that might die in crisis, often early in life. They might have a happier life if they could choose to avoid that happening. I think that there is great attraction in experiments that might prevent such problems. I mention that disease because it is the most prevalent in my constituency. I shall not cite the range of genetic diseases referred to by other hon. Members.
      I have considered, and I appreciate, the uses to which experimentation can be put. I find one argument extraordinarily convincing. At Christmas I visited King's College hospital and talked to the parents of children born by in vitro fertilisation. I accept that the success rate is not high—about 13 per cent.—and we all wish that it were higher. Any form of legitimate research that could bring that about would have my support and, I believe, the support of most people.
      Mr. Roger Stott: I was present at the birth of my son, Daniel, last Tuesday morning. Anyone who has been present at his child's birth will know the immense joy
      72
      that it brings to mothers and fathers. I shall vote for the Bill tonight because I do not want to deny anyone the opportunity to experience the immense joy and pleasure that I experienced last Tuesday.
      Mr. Fraser: I agree with my hon. Friend.
      I met hundreds of parents at King's College hospital. Of course, the majority would not have had implantation because the failure rate is about 85 per cent. However, there was a sense of intense love, devotion and achievement among the parents. Those are the same sort of people who would have to give their consent to any experiment on an embryo. Some would not give that consent, and they would have every right to withhold it. They are the people who make the choice and who lay down the rules about what will happen to the spare embryos—whether they should simply be destroyed, waste away or perish, whatever word is used, or whether there should be experiments within the ambit of the Bill and under the control of a committee. I am prepared to back their judgment, knowing that nature, of its own accord, experiments and destroys. I am prepared to support the Bill because the decisions come not from scientific madmen who want to experiment for the sake of experimentation, but from people whose decisions are born out of love and compassion.
      There is, of course, the first principles argument. I shall end with a quotation from another leading jurist, Chief Justice Warren Burger, who said that the sign of intelligence is the ability to doubt first principles. I am prepared to back both the intelligence and the compassion of those whom I met at King's College hospital.
      Sir David Price: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), and even more my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), took me back to the old metaphysical question of animation or ensoulment that has taxed philosophers from the time of Aristotle. To put it more simply, when did I begin—or for that matter, Sir Paul, when did you begin? What we can agree is that I did not spring fully armed from the head of Zeus, like Pallas Athena, and nor did my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
      The question, "When did I begin?" is not simply an interesting philosophical speculation. Certainly it was recognised by Lady Warnock and her colleagues. I wish to bring the Committee's attention to what was said in the Warnock report. I do not apologise for quoting from paragraph 11.11, which goes to the heart of the matter. It states:
      "It is obvious that the central objection to the use of human embryos as research subjects is a fundamental objection, based on moral principles. Put simply, the main argument is that the use of human embryos for research is morally wrong because of the very fact that they are human, and much of the evidence submitted to us strongly supports this. The human embryo is seen as having the same status as a child or an adult, by virtue of its potential for human life. The right to life is held to be the fundamental human right, and the taking of human life on this view is always abhorrent. To take the life of the innocent is an especial moral outrage. The first consequence of this line of argument is that, since an embryo used as a research subject would have no prospect of fulfilling its potential for life, such research should not be permitted."
      In paragraph 11.12, the arguments are developed. The report states:
      "Since it is unethical to carry out any research, harmful or otherwise, on humans without first obtaining their informed

      73
      consent, it must be equally unacceptable to carry out research on a human embryo, which by its very nature, cannot give consent."
      That is the fundamental point and it takes us back to the basic question, "When did I begin?"
      It is relevant to note that the Greek philosophers based their metaphysical speculations upon the known biology of the time. That was also true of scholastic thought in the middle ages. Indeed, Thomas Aquinas's biology was straight Aristotelian. There was little progress in biology during the intervening 1,600 years. I mention that to emphasise the point that good metaphysics and good science not only need not be in conflict, but should be in harmony. We must therefore consider what the biologists tell us about the origins of life. I shall again quote the Warnock report, and what appear to be the key words:
      "At fertilisation the egg and sperm unite to become a single cell. The nucleus of this cell contains the chromosomes derived from both parents. This single cell is totipotential, as from it develop all the different types of tissue and organs that make up the human body, as well as tissues that become the placenta and foetal membranes during intra-uterine development."
      That is my answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and her pre-embryos. There is a strong prima facie case in favour of the argument that human life begins at the point of fertilisation, and in that I agree my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). The Warnock committee as a whole also viewed that argument with considerable sympathy, which is why it recommended that the embryo of the human species should be accorded some protection in law—which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State fairly pointed out, it does not have at present. Nevertheless, for no very obvious biological on philosophical reason, Warnock rejected the now traditional view that human life begins at conception and settled instead for 14 or 15 days after fertilisation and the emergence of the so-called primitive streak.
      The Warnock committee was obviously attracted by the research argument, declaring that the measure of respect given to the human embryo "cannot be absolute" and must be weighed against the benefits arising from research. It added that that argument rests in part on the doctrine known to philosophers as double effect—an act that would be wrong if chosen for its own sake may be justified if it occurs as the by-product of some other well-intentioned act. Against that doctrine of double effect, I remind the Committee of two other doctrines well known not only to philosophers but to the ordinary man—including that famous gentleman on the top of a Clapham omnibus. They are: the ends do not justify the means; and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
      My right hon. and learned Friend dwelt mainly on the research arguments, but if the basic argument of origin is correct, the research arguments fall away and need not be examined. I could detain the Committee a considerable time in doing so, but in the interests of other right hon. and hon. Members, I shall not. However, there is an argument to the effect that, at the earliest stage of development, the embryo is only a minute group of living cells, smaller than a full stop in Hansard—so what is all the fuss about?
      That argument implies that the early embryo is not a human being, and reminds me of the Victorian maid's classic defence of her pregnancy. Right hon. and hon.
      74
      Members may recall the famous Punch cartoon, in which a pregnant maid defends herself before her stern mistress with the immortal words,
      "Well, Ma'am—it's only a little one, isn't it?"
      That argument does not convince me for one moment, for the simple reason given in the Warnock report—that at the moment of fertilisation, the egg and sperm unite to become a single cell, and that that single cell is "totipotential."
      In layman's terms, at the moment of fertilisation the single cell has the complete genetic DIY kit to develop into a healthy human being. Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to accept the Warnock report's majority recommendation that the primitive streak about 15 days after fertilisation marks the beginning of individual identity in the embryo's development. I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that human personality begins at conception and that we must proceed on that basis. In common with the author of the Warnock committee's minority report, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to give that view the benefit of any lingering doubts that they may entertain.
      However, I put it to the Committee—and particularly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, as a lawyer—that for the purposes of the law, conception could be defined as occurring at the moment of implantation rather than at fertilisation. My reason for offering the Committee that definition at this stage is not metaphysical or historical—although I could deploy arguments on both grounds—but entirely practical.
      To my knowledge, there is no simple, non-intrusive method of knowing whether fertilisation has occurred. One must wait until the process of implantation takes place at about the sixth or seventh day before the normal pregnancy test is effective. That process can be simply described. When the fertilised egg becomes implanted in the uterus, the tissue round the chorion produces a certain hormone, which passes into the mother's bloodstream and is excreted in her urine, where it can be detected. That is the basis of normal pregnancy testing. It is simple and non-obtrusive.
      I understand that no such test is available at the stage of ova fertilisation. For that reason, I submit that we should consider conception as having taken place at the point of implantation rather than at fertilisation. I have tabled amendments to clause 1 to achieve that purpose. It would not be in order for me to develop the arguments in favour of them this evening, but I believe that it is proper to refer to them.
      The amendments would have the effect of stopping all embryo research after conception. Therefore, it is appropriate to know how conception is to be defined in law. If the amendments fall, obviously the distinction between fertilisation and implantation would be irrelevant. If they succeed, the point that I seek to establish becomes highly relevant. I offer it for the Committee's consideration when determining whether to accept or reject the amendments relating to embryo research.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Daffydd Wigley: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. My mind goes back five years, to the time when Enoch Powell introduced his Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, which was accompanied by a period of considerable trauma for my family. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that we lost two boys in late 1984 and early 1985. The hon.

      75
      Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) spoke of the joy of being present for the birth of his own child last week. I had the honour of being present at the birth of our second boy, but I was also present at his death and that of our eldest boy. Therefore, the debate has considerable meaning for my wife and myself. I believe that our feelings are shared by countless thousands of people who have faced the problems of genetic abnormalities and of dealing with the likelihood of bringing into the world a child who in some cases may not only be handicapped but appallingly handicapped, self-mutilating, or in immense pain, and doomed to an early death.
      Mothers who have endured that experience once may find that they cannot face doing so a second time. Unless such mothers can be assured of being assisted to give birth to a non-handicapped child, they may rather not have another child at all. Some may proceed on a hit-or-miss basis, hoping against hope that the handicap concerned will not manifest itself in their second or third child.
      Science offers a chance of helping such families. We have heard in the past few days of breakthroughs at Hammersmith hospital and of the work of Professor Winston and others. There is the amazing possibility that it could be feasible at an early stage in pregnancy to detect whether embryos are abnormal, and we must ensure that families wanting to take advantage of those new techniques are able to do so, and are allowed to make the choice of avoiding the risk of perpetuating a handicap into the next generation.
      No one is forcing those families to take that course. Anyone who objects to such techniques on conscientious or other grounds is entitled to avoid them. The question is whether Parliament has a right to tell people who could benefit from embryo research, "No, you cannot benefit from it. You must live with the problems that exist within your family."
      What is true of genetic handicaps is true also of those who are infertile. I cannot imagine any greater frustration than that which affects one couple in eight in this country—the problem of infertility, and of trying again and again to start a family but being unable to do so. The past 10 or 15 years have seen magnificent breakthroughs, which have enabled 4,000 children to be born as a consequence of IVF research. If no further embryo research is allowed, the knowledge that we already have would perpetuate, and many families would still benefit from it. However, the level of success in IVF is still regrettably low at only 13 per cent.
      Countless thousands of people are still not enjoying the benefits of research, and if the kind of restriction being debated tonight had been on the statute book 20 years ago, it would not have been possible for the 4,000 children of whom I spoke to enter the world. Therefore, if we stop research now we are stopping hope for many infertile couples.
      I accept that there are many methods of research other than destructive embryo research, which is the main issue that we are discussing. I also accept that those other avenues must be explored. Every stone must be turned to seek a solution. When people such as Professor Edwards at Bourne hall, who has done such sterling work to
      76
      develop those techniques, tell us that they cannot continue to improve the techniques without the ability to undertake such research, I accept it.
      When Professor Winston from Hammersmith hospital tells us that without the right to do embryo research he would not have been able to achieve the successes that he announced last week, I believe what he says. Those medical scientists talk with total integrity and honesty. In humility, we should ask ourselves whether we should be challenging them in this way.
      Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Professor Edwards does not want to stop at 14 days?
      Mr. Wigley: The Bill draws the line at 14 days, on the basis of the research undertaken by the Warnock commission, and its report.
      We have heard some very good speeches tonight, for example, from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and from the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), although I think they will be taking opposing views to me into the Lobby tonight. However, I respect their view absolutely, because the basic question is when we perceive that human life begins. The merits of research are a secondary question. If we believe, as some hon. Members do, that the pre-embryo should have full human status, it leads to all sorts of consequences. Many hon. Members do not believe that that is the case.
      When the Father of the House spoke a few moments ago about a doctor killing his patient, some of us felt considerable offence that such an accusation—that some hon. Members are in support of murder—should have been made. We consider that the sperm and the egg coming together are only two of three prerequisites for on-going human life. The sperm is human material and so is the egg, and when they come together they have human potential. I acknowledge that potential for human life, but it can be fulfilled only when implantation takes place at between seven and 14 days. It is complete at the 14th day and that is where the line is drawn in the Bill and in the recommendations of Warnock. It is at that stage that the primitive streak appears.
      Before the 14th day, the embryo may split to form twins. Therefore, individuality—which means the same as indivisibility—cannot be established before 14 days because of the possibility of splitting. Also the nervous system has not developed by the 14th day. Only from 14 days onwards can we say with some assurance that we may have a single human being developing into a born child. For that reason the line is being drawn at 14 days.
      As we have recently heard, there can be tremendous benefits from the research, in overcoming genetic handicaps and infertility. If we decide to abandon that research, we are closing the door on the hopes of countless thousands of infertile couples and families who face the burden of genetic abnormality.
      Every hon. Member, when considering how he or she will vote, must think not only of their own consciences but of the impact of the Bill on constituents who have enormous burdens to carry and who have to live with enormous frustration. I hope to goodness that we follow the course taken in another place a few weeks ago, and that we allow research to continue.
      Mrs. Currie: It is now 20 years since this type of research started, 12 years since the first IVF baby and eight

      77
      years since the Department of Health first asked the Warnock committee to sit. In that time there has probably been the most thorough discussion of any issue that I can recall and it has been extremely valuable.
      As a result of such discussion, many issues have been clarified by the passage of time. We now know that it is possible to produce healthy babies by IVF. Around the world there are now thousands of such babies. We cannot unwish them and say that they should not exist. We now have no doubt that if research continues techniques will develop to improve the success rate of IVF. We also know that it is possible to police effectively such research and the establishments where it takes place. That policing has been effective on a voluntary basis. How much better it will be if policing and supervision are carried out on a statutory basis. We now know that it is possible to identify the genes carrying genetic diseases and more of those genes are identified every year. That opens up the spectre of genetic manipulation at some time in the future.
      We know, as their Lordships in the debate on 7 December did not, that embryonic biopsy is possible and that the sex of an embryo can be determined three days after conception, so that those families with sex-linked congenital diseases can look forward to bearing a healthy child and some such families in this country are already looking forward to that.
      In the chapter in the Warnock report about possible future developments, those developments were still way in the future. However, they are no longer speculation or science fiction and we must legislate.
      I have always held the view that we should encourage medical research which can benefit mankind, particularly that which can improve our health and the health of our children.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, (Mrs. Fyfe), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned that many medical advances were originally regarded as unethical—for example, painkillers in childbirth. Debates in the House about whether it was ethical to permit women to avoid Adam's curse and to have their children without pain were symptomatic of that. Many of us feel very thankful that Queen Victoria said, "Rubbish," and clung to the chloroform.
      Similarly, that was the case with many debates about contraception. Although many people still have strong feelings on that subject, millions of men and women in this country have taken advantage of scientific advances in contraception and will continue to do so.
      Organ transplants are another example. Hon. Members should look at the debates about corneal transplants that took place in the House in the 1950s, and whether they were ethical and part of the will of God. We can see how attitudes have changed. Research on embryos is not dissimilar and the day will come when for most of us it will not be a controversial subject, and its achievements will be taken for granted.
      Hon. Members on both sides, from all sorts of political and religious backgrounds, have said that they are opposed not to research but to destructive research. That is like saying that the tree is welcome but the seed is not. How does one justify the thousands of failed experiments that eventually lead to success? How can we prevent and make illegal the thousands more failures to come, which will improve the chances of success? If we accept the successful technique and reject the failure in which the
      78
      embryo perishes, how can we tell in advance which technique it will be? Science has always been a hit and miss affair. It cannot guarantee success in advance.
      The argument that people are not opposed to research, only to destructive research, stems from the belief that the embryo is an unborn child. I do not share that belief. The intellectually consistent position for those who hold such a belief is to vote against research.
      I shall try not to cross swords on the ethical and religious issues. People have to make up their own minds as to whether the conceptus—the blob of cells some of which will become membrane, some placenta to be discarded, some brain, hand or eye—is merely a blob of cells or a human child ab initio, with rights and privileges to be protected. For me it is a blob of cells.
      As the Royal Society says, it is not a question of size. What is at issue is the degree of cellular organisation of the conceptus. It follows that research on it up to 14 days, as laid down in the legislation and suggested by Warnock, is not an ethical but a practical matter.
      I would much rather that research be done in this country under the National Health Service, where it can be controlled and where its benefits are available to people from every kind of financial background, than for it to begin elsewhere, as it no doubt will, and to be carried out by less scrupulous people. Indeed, the one research project that was declined by the interim licensing authority is now being carried out abroad in a country where there is no control, and there are many such countries.
      We should also remember the point made by Baroness Warnock in the debate in the other place on 7 December. She explained that the pre-14 day embryo—whatever one calls it—actually has no rights at present. Those who vote in favour of research tonight want to create some rights and protection. We are not in a position in which the embryo has full protection which some wicked people want to erode. The embryo has no protection at all in this country. The Bill seeks to create some protection for the embryo and that is particularly true of the research clause.
      7.30 pm
      If we accept, as I do, that we are dealing with a blob of cells, that is not the end of the ethical issues. Rather, I believe that that is where the ethical issues start. At that point we must consider the purpose of the research and what might be possible as a result of it. We can help women who are infertile and want to bear a healthy child. That is marvellous, and research in that context has an ethical purpose. Women might be relieved of the misery of miscarriage as a result of research. I have been through a miscarriage and I tell the House that that is a terrible experience. I cannot begin to imagine the misery experienced by women who have to endure miscarriages over and over again. Trying to assist those families is also an ethical purpose.
      Families carrying the gene of handicap may have the chance of healthy children as a result of research. How can we deny them that chance? Would it not be a good thing if the haemophilia gene was to vanish and if muscular dystrophy became a thing of the past? Those are ethical issues as well. We do not devalue handicapped people when we say that we want to see an end to handicap. We are not concerned with some kind of search-and-destroy mission.
      Of course, most handicapped people would rather have been born than not. That is really the issue for tomorrow's

      79
      debate. However, my guess is that most of them would rather have been born without their handicap, and that is the central issue for today's debate. Most parents carrying defective genes would rather not pass on defects to the next generation.
      I am not just speaking here of the most obvious diseases or the tragic diseases that have been described so graphically and in such moving terms tonight. I know that I speak for thousands of asthmatics when I say that if and when it is possible to avoid passing on our asthma to our children—we must remember that asthma is a killer disease for many children—we will all give thanks to God and to those who carry out research which may some day make that possible.
      Mr. Burt: With regard to the genetic disorders that my hon. Friend has just mentioned and that she hopes will not recur in future, will she admit that embryo research, as such, will have nothing to do with the cure of those diseases? Research may prevent people from being born with those diseases, but it will do nothing to cure those diseases and that has been accepted by those who support embryo research.
      Mrs. Currie: I have two responses for my hon. Friend. First, until we carry out the research, we do not know. Secondly, there is a distinction between prevention and cure. Research certainly offers increasingly, day by day, the possibility of prevention. The same ethical issues are raised and I am very worried about genetic manipulation. However, there is no doubt that the research that we take for granted today—that is, that we can produce healthy children in a test tube—was regarded as science fiction 20 years ago. The research to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) refers, which seems science fiction today, will appear run of the mill to our grandchildren.
      Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the causes of some diseases are so mysterious at the moment that we cannot hope to know whether they are genetic? If research is banned as a result of our voting tonight, that may close down the avenue of research into those diseases, the effect of which can be just as terrible as some of those that have already been mentioned.
      Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend has a great point. I am hesitant about fishing expeditions. I believe that research must be clearly thought out and have a clear purpose. It must be clearly demonstrated to the statutory licensing authority that the techniques to be used have some chance of success. That is what will happen if we vote for research tonight.
      However, I am as worried as other hon. Members about the ends to which research might be put. All research that leads to good ends could in the wrong hands be turned to evil. That is why I want research in this country. That is why I want to vote for strict controls and for the statutory licensing authority. That is why I regard the research as different. The law must be involved because the research is too important to be left to the doctors. I hope that the controls set out in the Bill will be accepted.
      If we accept that good can result from research, we should accept the methods that produce the good results. If we will the ends, we must will the means. However few might be the occasions when the end justifies the means, there are no occasions when we can hope and pray for the
      80
      ends and not vote for the means. We cannot undo the knowledge that we already have. We have heard biblical metaphors all evening. I will offer one more. We cannot act as if the children about whom we are concerned do not exist. We have eaten of the tree of knowledge and been given free will to decide how to use it. We cannot push Adam and Eve back into the Garden of Eden and tell them, "Don't touch."
      I am certain that the research is based on the highest ethical principles. I cannot vote to make those researchers criminals. I cannot vote to put an end to that work. For me, that would be wrong. I can vote to ensure that the research is tightly supervised and put to the highest purposes—that is, the improved health of the people of this country and of the world. That is how I shall vote tonight.
      Mrs. Rosie Barnes: It has finally been established in the Chamber, and I hope among the public, that we are talking about experimentation on a minute cluster of identical cells that are totally undifferentiated—one is exactly the same as another. As they reproduce, they do so in identical forms. Some of them will form the embryo, some the membrane and some the placenta.
      Some hon. Members may have seen a placenta. It is certainly human tissue and it is certainly very useful. However, there would be considerable debate as to whether it had a human soul. It is not until after the 14-day period that any differentiation of the cells occurs. There is no brain, nervous system or recognisable organ before then. We are talking about human tissue—not, in my opinion, a human being.
      I want to reiterate a point that has been mentioned during this debate. One of the commonly used methods of contraception in this country—the coil—causes the demise of embryos at 14 days, and beyond, each month during the woman's menstrual cycle. The coil prevents an embryo from being implanted in the wall of the uterus and developing into a foetus. That is already legal and common practice in this country. We should keep that firmly in perspective when we vote tonight. The potential for a human being lies within the cell to which I have referred. It is as though the computer programme exists, but it has not yet been triggered.
      The significance of 14 days has been discussed at some length and some people are suspicious as to whether 14 days is just one of many slippery slopes. I agree that at that stage the embryo is no less alive or potentially human than it would be at 13 days or 15 days. By definition, it has been agreed that the process of fertilisation and the evolving of a human being is a gradual and continual process.
      I shall quote the Archbishop of York, who spoke in the other place, because he reminds us of what many people with strong Christian beliefs feel about the issue. Referring to the development of an embryo, he said:
      "The same is true in the development of individual lives. They begin with chemistry and they reach their fulfilment in mystery. There is no doubt about the depth, wonder, moral worth and religious significance of personhood, but the transitions on the way to it are not clean, clear and decisive, despite the tremendous significance attached by some people to the moment of fertilisation. Biologically speaking we are looking at a continuous process. … The philosophical mistake in the belief that full and instantaneous human rights are somehow created in the moment of conception lies in the surreptitious assumption that in those very early stages of embryonic life there is some real personal entity to which our moral language can apply."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 1989; Vol. 513, c. 1020–1021.]

      81
      That must be reiterated in light of the debate, because much of it has focused on that crucial moment when life as we recognise it begins. It is when, perhaps, the soul enters the human body, to put it in the most easily understandable way.
      If we accept that it is a continual, gradual process, we must accept that there is some arbitrary element in the decision on when research should be allowed and what the cut-off point should be. In the Glover report, the endorsement of the 14 days is made absolutely clear. It is a sensible cut-off point before any organs develop and before the primitive streak begins to develop. It is interesting that that has just been accepted in Spain and approved by King Juan Carlos. Spain is a Catholic country and it has not been unable to resolve the religious dilemma in tackling this difficult problem.
      I should like to refute several points made by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House. Those who are involved in the work would accept that IVF treatment is not a panacea for all evils. They do not claim that it is the be-all and end-all in solving infertility and genetic disease and making many other contributions to the medical world. They accept that it is a slowly developing and growing discipline that will make some valuable contributions. In 1990, it is unfair to draw attention to the words of Professor Winston in 1982 without reminding the House of the dramatic developments in the intervening eight years. Things that were unheard of and would not have been accepted as available in the foreseeable future in 1982 were dismissed. We have seen dramatic changes since then. Only last week we heard for the first time that some women were pregnant, having been able to have their embryos sexed to make sure that they were not carrying a child with an inherent genetic disease that affects only one sex.
      Again we have heard the questions, "Is that a cure? Is that prevention?" Of course it is prevention. To date, there has been no method by which an embryo can be unloaded of a genetic disease and continue to fruition. Do we say that research to date is not valid and does not have a place in our society? Some women have seen their brothers, nephews and uncles die of dreadful diseases that affect only the males in their families. They may have a child already afflicted by the same disease, or they may have had a late abortion, having discovered at 19 or 20 weeks that they were carrying a boy chid. Should we condemn those women to childlessness?
      Are we not doing them a great disservice by saying, "You are not allowed to make the choice to have a girl child and not to risk carrying this dreadful disease further"?
      There have been many references to research in Australia, but, when looking at the merits of research and what is happening elsewhere in the world, we must constantly remind ourselves that it would not be happening at all were it not for the research that has taken place here. Without research we would not have reached the present stage. Research has a variety of functions. The three main functions are treatment of infertility, an attempt to tackle genetic diseases, and progress in the development of contraception. Of course no one is happy with the current rate of success. A 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. success rate in the treatment of infertile couples is not nearly high enough. In our constant quest for a cure for cancer, have we said that, because we have made progress
      82
      slowly and because in certain years we seemed to reach a plateau, we should give up? I am afraid research is not like that.
      7.45 pm
      We may go forward slowly and painstakingly and seem to get nowhere fast for many years and then there may be a breakthrough. No one can guarantee when a breakthrough will occur, but without continuing research we are committed to the status quo. For many of those who suffer the problems that have been described the status quo is just not good enough.
      Women such as myself who have had children fairly easily find it difficult to comprehend the misery of childlessness. However, if one talks to someone who has been trying to have a child for 10 years or more and who watches her sisters and even her nieces and friends producing children and who feels inadequate and unfulfilled and less than a woman, one begins to understand the pain and misery. We must continue to recognise and tackle the problem.
      Hon. Members recognise that breakthroughs in genetic disease are in their early stages. There may be far more. I would be the first to admit that many parents who do not know that they are carriers of a genetic disease will not have received treatment. However, others know that they are carrying a disease, but they are often only a small percentage of the population for whom that benefit may be appropriate. Are we to deny people possible help with their dreadful dilemma?
      What choice do they have at present? They have the choice not to have children, but childlessness is miserable. They can choose a late abortion. Again, that is a miserable experience. Of course, they can give birth to an affected child. Nobody is saying that they must have treatment. There is no compulsion to participate in the scheme and avail oneself of the new techniques. For those whose religious beliefs strongly dictate that they must have the child who is to be born to them no matter what, their right will be absolutely protected. For many people, a pre-implantation diagnosis must be far better.
      We should not turn our backs on research and say to childless couples, "We cannot help you further." We need research not only for IVF, but to understand the causes of miscarriage, which means that many women will not have to go as far as IVF. A better understanding of miscarriage will be the tool to help in their dilemma.
      Are we to say to those who risk genetic disease, late abortion, and miscarriage time after time, "Sorry, there is something that could be done to help you but, for reasons of ethics and of conscience, we have said that it cannot go further"? They will say, "We have our conscience and our ethics, and we also have our misery to bear, and we would like progress." We are debating not whether research is to be allowed to take place, but whether it should be properly controlled to benefit humankind and to bring joy rather than to add to human misery.
      I shall make one personal point, as I am one of the few people in the Chamber who has had an amniocentesis test when I had a child at the age of 39. In an earlier pregnancy, I had rubella at an early stage and waited from week 13 to week 20 for the medical profession to agree that that was what I had had at 13 weeks. I knew that I was not prone to hysterical rashes. I also knew that I had been in contact with a child who had rubella, so I knew that that was what I had. However, for perfectly laudable reasons, it took a

      83
      further seven weeks for the results of the blood test to be made available to my consultant, who then agreed that I had had rubella at 13 weeks' pregnancy. I had spent seven weeks knowing that the child was growing, becoming more obviously pregnant and feeling it move. I was then given 24 hours to decide whether I wanted a termination. I shall never forget those 24 hours in my life.
      I went ahead with the pregnancy and my son, who is now nearly 17, although he is partially hearing, has been a great joy to us. I see some merit in the argument that that made it all right, but I must stress to those who have never had the experience that that seven-week period was a miserable time and that the decision whether to go ahead with the pregnancy, knowing that I might have had a severely disabled child or whether to abort a child who was quite well and would have a reasonable hope of happiness and fulfilment, was a dreadful one, and I would not wish it on anyone. It would be a great step forward for humanity for anyone to be able to make that decision in advance of having a child growing in their womb, and we should not turn our back on that option.
      Although I do not have strong religious convictions, I have not turned my back on the religious argument which I know is strongly felt by many people. At one of the briefing meetings that I attended I heard about an interesting book by a Roman Catholic doctor who had reached the conclusion that embryo research was in the best interests of her patients. Her name is Dr. Joyce Poole and her book is called "The Cross of Unknowing". She has worked for many years with people wishing to have abortions and people with infertility problems, knowing that embryo research was one route out of their dilemma. She worked as a Catholic doctor, knowing that her Church was preaching something quite different from what she was beginning to feel was the right way forward.
      Dr. Poole draws attention to some interesting moral and religious dilemmas. She says that when a woman has a late miscarriage when a foetus is born dead, that foetus has no special rights. It is not baptised; it is discarded along with normal hospital waste. We are trying to give rights to an embryo of up to 14 days which do not exist later in that process. She also says that we accept the test of brain death. When the cells in the brain stop functioning in a person who is severely ill or has been severely injured, that is accepted as death and the life-support machine can be switched off. We are giving a totally different set of rights to something that does not have a brain or any brain cells at that stage in its existence. I am not under-estimating its potential or denigrating an embryo of up to 14 days; I am simply putting the matter in perspective.
      Dr. Poole says that, without the embryo research that has taken place to date, there would not have been so many live births, but she recognises that it is necessary to use ovulatory drugs, as without them there would be a far poorer chance of success and there would have to be repeated operations for obtaining eggs, with problems of time, risk and cost. As a result of using such drugs, spare embryos are created. If one accepts that principle, and the fact that there will be spare embryos, there is a variety of options. One can force the women whose embryos they are to have them re-implanted with the result of multiple pregnancies or innumerable births, or one can freeze the embryos. One can allow them to perish naturally or one
      84
      can use them for two or three days—up to 14 days—for invaluable research which will help women such as those who donate their spare eggs for such work.
      It is interesting to note that most of the embryos used for experimentation are given freely. I have met women who have given their eggs. Even women who have failed to establish a pregnancy have said, "It has not worked for me, but I have some spare embryos and I hope that they will help somebody else." Dr. Joyce Poole comments:
      "There is an authority too residing in those of us who have a lifetime of listening in close and frank contact to the problems of ordinary people."
      That is what made her reconsider.
      I do not believe that there is any relationship between what we are discussing tonight and people who have already been born handicapped. There is no attempt to undervalue or to denigrate them. Once a person has been born with a handicap or problem, that person is entitled to the maximum that our society can do for them. That is not to say that their parents—as they would never have the decision—would not rather that they had not been born but, had they known how they would be born, another child not carrying that disease may have been born instead.
      It has been argued that we would be on a slippery slope. I have said that I do not think that 14 days is absolutely cast in stone, but the House should commit itself to a 14-day limit as there must be a benchmark, strong regulations and proper controls. There is general agreement that 14 days is an acceptable period for achieving medical results and pre-empting the development of an embryo into a human being.
      Research will continue here or abroad. We should allow it to continue here legally, safely and properly regulated. The research offers hope for current and future generations and it offers choice that people will not continue to have if we turn our backs on them. To deny that research would be short-sighted and irresponsible in the extreme.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: In an extremely interesting speech, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) accepted the 14-day limit, but that is not a bulwark which will hold. I have looked carefully at British society in the past 20 to 30 years. I have noticed changes in policy on divorce and abortion and the elimination of 1 million children. I have also examined the recent case of the three Turks who unfortunately had their kidneys removed without their consent, and I am concerned about society's respect for the dignity of human life. I believe that, at conception, the DNA is in place. That is the code of life, and from that moment on it is due respect.
      It would be incongruous for the legislature to give total protection to the human embryo after 14 days but permit abortion within 28 weeks of conception. It is ironic that society has been so sensitive about hanging murderers but so complacent about destroying unborn babies. Those developing the so-called contraceptive vaccine to limit population growth, calculate to use the embryo to test the efficacy of its destructive process. All these are telling points.
      It is all very well the Secretary of State alleging that he will keep to 14 days. We know that 14 days will be breached at the first opportunity, as soon as it can be established that there is more material gain to be secured thereafter. Fourteen days is not immutable. At the time of the Warnock report, scientists talked about 14 to 28 days.

      85
      Lejeune observed that one cannot yield solutions to the problem of genetic disease because prior to 14 days no organs or tissues exist.
      8 pm
      Professor Williamson said that organogenisis occurs between 14 and 28 days. That is the time at which experiments will be prohibited by the Bill. In November 1989, the Royal Society was talking about up to 28 days. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists talked about 17 days in 1983. Professor Bob Edwards—now a great personality in history—talked about 30 days.
      I am disturbed that the tendency to back-tread could be extremely dangerous. During the debate, many hon. Members have talked about research. They have given it two connotations. No one objects to general research for the relief of pain and suffering, whatever it may be. We simply argue that, where research would involve the destruction of a human embryo, the embryo must be safeguarded. Conservative Members—or at least a few of us-believe that the onus of proof is on those who want to establish the change and allow research on embryos.
      The Progress report says on page 6:
      "No one would dispute the claim that 95 per cent. or more of research required can and should be done without the use of human embryos".
      In 1989, the professor of genetics at the Mayo clinic in the United States, Professor Hymie Gordon, said:
      "Everything we need to learn can be learnt by studying genetic diseases in non-human primates and animals … no one has ever been able to tell me as a scientist what particular step in scientific knowledge is going to be achieved by an experiment on a human embryo that could not have been done in an animal embryo."
      Hon. Members will appreciate that the use of animals is growing more expensive every year. The expense of the upkeep of monkeys is becoming prohibitive. In contrast, the human embryo is readily accessible and relatively inexpensive. Might that not be one of the reasons why people are going ahead with such experiments?
      We have been told that many major breakthroughs and genetic advances have been achieved without research on human embryos. We had two examples from the Secretary of State today—the discovery of the gene that causes cystic fibrosis and that which causes Duchenne muscular dystrophy. We have also been told today about the splendid work of Professor Robert Winston on a successful implant following sex identification. But no one said that the same results could have been achieved without experimenting on the human embryo, by sampling the polar body of the ovum before conception. The Secretary of State did not mention that. Sex can be determined either within three days, at a later stage when there can be an abortion or prior to fertilisation of the egg. If sex can be determined before fertilisation, is it not better for society to tread that path? It should learn to treat and cure, not to destroy life.
      Ms. Harriet Harman: How would it be possible to know whether the fertilised embryo was safe and free from abnormality if there had not been research? Would it not be irresponsible to remove the polar body and then reimplant it without having done thorough research to make sure that an abnormal embryo was not being reimplanted in the woman on an experimental basis?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Lady will appreciate that, prior to conception, an egg came from the woman and semen came from the man. Because shortly there will be a
      86
      germ of life, that can be analysed and assessed in precisely the same way as could be done three days later. If it can be done earlier, there is no interference or destruction of the embryo. That point was overlooked, and I suggest that it should be considered by this Committee.
      Hon. Members on this side of the Chamber and on Opposition Benches all support the general research which is now available. Let us consider what that general research will give without experimentation on human embryos. Vitamin supplementation may suffice to protect the embryo from spina bifida. The extraction of cells from people suffering from cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease and retino blastoma will lead to greater understanding of all those diseases and the genetic factors responsible for them. Bone marrow transplants may be used to treat genetic blood diseases. Drugs can be used to modify the metabolism in Down's syndrome. Gene therapy can be used for cystic fibrosis to expand the span of life from 20 to 40 years and also to treat muscular dystrophy and cancer immune deficiency. I have also mentioned the introduction of a normal gene to replace a defective one during foetal life, and careful analysis of the female egg before fertilisation.
      All those advances were achieved without the necessity of destroying the human embryo. It is right that we are asking the House to make a decision tonight. The Government have given sufficient time for the matter to be reviewed.
      We must take the fact into account that there is a clear attitude to such research in Europe. The West German Max Plank institute does not support research using human embryos, and the current legislation in that country does not allow it. In France, there is no consensus on the Bill. In Norway, experimentation is prohibited, and in Denmark, there is a moratorium. The Council of Europe has stated that research on human embryos should be banned. Spain is the only country that permits it.
      We must also remember—it has already been mentioned tonight—that on the Warnock committee there were seven dissenting votes in a committee of 16.
      I do not wish to take too much time, but I have several further observations to make. Research using embryos has never been concerned with the treatment of genetic diseases of chromosomal abnormalities. It will not help the present generation of sufferers from cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy. The authorisation of the destruction of embryos will not eliminate genetic disease. Embryo research is not used as a general method of screening for genetic diseases, because in many cases it is impossible to discover the mother at risk. It is only discoverable when there has been a history of disease in the family, or perhaps when a previous child has a problem.
      It will take more than 1,000 years to halve the gene frequency in the population for cystic fibrosis and 760 years for sickle cell anaemia. The problem must be viewed in perspective. Embryo research relevant to a tiny percentage of couples who are known to be at risk is important, and therefore must be considered. The figure works out at about 1·8 per cent. of full-term births, of which only 15 per cent. are due to single defective gene cells which can be identified in the embryo.
      There are many ways to the top of the hill, and research on all fronts must be advanced for the relief of infertile people. We all agree with that, but must we pay no regard

      87
      to human dignity? Must we bring the country to moral bunkruptcy? That could occur if we ignore the important issues of life.
      I recognise the importance of IVF and the fact that much has been done, but it can cause chromosomal abnormalities. The removal of one defect can cause another, which can lead to later abortions. For example, the incidence of spina bifida is five times greater than normal in such cases, and the incidence of congenital heart disease is six times greater. I am fully in favour of IVF, because it is a way ahead. General research can help. Concentrated effort could come. I should like to know from the Minister how many abortions have resulted following IVF. I tried to find the figures, but was told that they were not available because they are not collected. I had a word with several distinguished doctors, who tell me that the numbers are considerable.
      IVF schedules are physically and emotionally disturbing. A super-ovulation should not be encouraged, because it causes the lining of the womb to be unreceptive and produces eggs of low quality. In many cases of singletons, a caesarian delivery is as high as 41 per cent.
      I have never been one to suggest that we must reconsider the matter. I am worried about the moral issues involved. Scientists must bow to the moral wishes of the nation. Otherwise, they will speed ahead towards moral bankruptcy, which we wish to avoid. It is easy to concede 14 days in a Bill and to believe that thereafter the embryo will be protected by the majesty of the law, but what happens when the period is extended to 28 days or longer? What happens tomorrow night, when we find that we have lost more than 1 million children who could have been born and adopted? I would be out of order if I went further on that point, but we should be careful before we make a move. Would not a moratorium be appropriate on this occasion?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Frank Cook: I will not detain the House long. I must start with an admission and an apology. I have listened to most of the debate, being absent for only a brief time, and it seems that I am the only Member who has come to listen to the debate not knowing where he stands. Like all hon. Members, for months I have been receiving many representations from different schools of thought and shades of opinion. I have been unable to crystallise my thoughts to a definitive position. I am the first Member to speak who has had to admit that degree of doubt.
      I have both read and listened carefully. My confusion has arisen not because of people's claims about their own beliefs but because of their claims about the beliefs of those who oppose their beliefs—the claims that pro-lifers have been making about pro-researchers and vice versa.
      The confusion caused by the pro-lifers is the most obfuscating. Tonight hon. Members have made claims which, when checked against the Bill, are deliberately misleading. That undermines any validity of their other claims. This evening, it has been said that the research announced only four days ago would be permitted if the amendment were accepted. Schedule 2(3) makes it clear in black and white how voting for the amendment would effectively prohibit the issue of licences to carry out
      88
      research for the treatment of infertility for increasing knowledge on the causes of congenital disease, for increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriages, for developing more effective techniques of contraception or for developing methods for protecting gene or chromosomal abnormalities in embryos before implementation. That last one would effectively debar the type of work done by Dr. Winston. Yet tonight, we have heard it claimed that the amendment would not adversely affect the work.
      That is not the only misleading claim that we have heard tonight. I am not saying that those misleading statements were made deliberately. The matter is complex and sophisticated. It can easily be misunderstood by those who are not staying wide awake, keeping their minds clear and thinking carefully. I am sorry for anybody who has not listened to the debate and who must vote at 11 pm, because the decision is not as easy as it may seem.
      I want to attract the Minister's attention to one particular issue on which I need clarification. Among all the confusing statements, one particularly important claim has been made by the pro-lifers. I apologise to the House for using such shorthand terms, but I cannot think of a phrase that would be more readily understood. It has been argued that the fault lies not in using excess numbers of conceptuses—pre-embryos—that have been used for the purpose of infertility treatment, but could possibly lie in ensuring that an excess number of pre-embryos were created in order to create the very excess on which to undertake research.
      If the Minister was able to give an assurance, to me alone if not to everyone, that the monitoring body and regulations would ensure that the quantity of conceptuses created for infertility treatment was strictly regulated and that therefore excessive numbers would not be created, that would remove a major area of concern before my decision about which Lobby to enter.
      We have talked for about four hours, and I shall continue to listen intently to the debate until 11 o'clock. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Atterliffe (Mr. Duffy) said that, on Second Reading, those against research got the better of the argument, but I believe that that depends on the position one adopts when considering the problem. I have been in constant doubt about this matter; I have assiduously tried to reach a conclusion in my heart and mind, and I see the debate in a different light from my hon. Friend.
      I am still undecided, but, on the balance of the debate that I have heard tonight, I shall be voting to leave the Bill unamended—unless, of course, I hear a declaration from those advocating the other side of the argument that is somewhat less emotional and a good deal more clinical than they have been today.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope that it will not sound discourteous of me if I say that those who seek to explain that embryos are less than human beings seem to be trying to find ways in which to assuage their conscience so as to enable them to support the research that has been conducted in past years.
      One may ask, of course, if one allows tens of thousands of foetuses to be aborted every year, many of which are normal, why should we concern ourselves with the fate of embryos up to 14 days? Surely the answer is that we are talking about the sanctity of life. Whether we choose to play with words about embryos, pre-embryos, foetuses or

      89
      whatever, every one of us started our lives as an embryo. We should not therefore imagine that what we are talking about is something different from ourselves.
      Life used to be considered sacred—all life, at any age—but now I believe that we are willing to consider life as sacred only after birth. If that is so, on what morality do we base that judgment? Clause 11, in common with the rest of the Bill, is an attempt to write the ethics of medicine by legislation now that the medical profession has given up its own code of ethics embodied in the Hippocratic oath that all doctors used to swear. It is important to remind the House of the words a doctor swore:
      "The regimen I adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients according to my ability and judgment and not for their hurt or for any wrong. I will give no deadly drug to any though it may be asked of me nor will I counsel such and especially I will not aid a woman to procure an abortion."
      That oath and the ethics it enshrined lasted the medical profession from the fourth century BC to the second half of this century—more than 2,000 years—and it spanned the pre-Christian and the present Christian age. Now, without it, I believe that the medical profession lives in a world of ad hoc ethics; hence the charge that doctors and scientists play God and intend to play God unless the House chooses to put some limits on the actions that they may be about to take. The Bill and clause 11 do nothing to answer that charge.
      We, as mere laymen, are being asked by the ancient and honourable profession of medicine to provide it with a new code of ethics based on such laws as we think are in people's best interests. All leaders of the medical profession should be concerning themselves with this serious situation. At present that situation suggests to me that members of the medical profession have lost their way and are not sure what professional standards they and we should expect of them. In turn that means that, without that certainty in the minds of members of the medical profession, we all have cause for concern whenever they come to us asking to be allowed to carry out some research that they have not done hitherto.
      Where are the limits beyond which the medical profession is not prepared to go? What will it not do in the name of science and research? Recently I asked a professor whether he would find it possible to sanction the idea of a head transplant—he did not find the idea entirely objectionable.
      Perhaps the fault is ours, as we expect modern medicine to be able to cure every known disease, or, if not to cure, at least to do something about it. It is as if we believed that each one of us has the right to be born perfect, that everyone should be able to have a child, that no one should be asked to bring a baby into the world that might have a handicap and that if a woman becomes pregnant it is her choice whether the baby is born, regardless of whether that baby is normal or not. Medicine is therefore required to satisfy all of our needs, though sadly not those of the baby, and seems incapable of questioning the ethics of what it may be doing, whether it should be doing it at all or whether the end justifies the means.
      In a world that is suffering from over-population and that is still afflicted with so many curable illnesses, can the medical profession justify the huge expenditure of vast resources on the more esoteric aspects of medicine, when that money could buy immediate and more easily achievable relief for so many?
      90
      Medicine, however cannot resist dangling the carrot of hope before us, without being quite honest about what is involved and the chances of success. So it is with embryo research. I do not believe that congenital conditions such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, infertility or any of the 4,000 single-gene defects are part of the divine will, or that we should not seek to discover what causes them. Therefore, I do not oppose research to discover their causes.
      The question that troubles me about the Bill and clause 11 in particular is whether embryo research is an emollient and sympathetic phrase for what is more often than not embryo destruction—at a later stage of life, it would be wilful killing. We are talking about 14 days in which scientists can pursue their theories on living human matter; then the embryo's life is ended. As has already been suggested, how soon will it be before we are told that, if only we could have another 14 days, they could achieve so much more?
      Like everyone in this debate, to answer my doubts I have done my best to read the briefing material sent to me by both sides, including many personal letters from constituents and handicapped people. I had the opportunity to visit the Hallam clinic. Perhaps I started with a bias in favour of embryo research because, superficially, what it seems able to offer could rid mankind of so much human suffering. Had I spoken on Second Reading I would have come down on the side of embryo research, but because of that debate and the opportunity that it gave me to read and talk about the subject, I have continued to seek just one essential fact on which to decide how to vote tonight. That fact is: after four years of embryo research, what has been achieved—not what may be achieved—in the search for the causes of congenital illness?
      8.30 pm
      I want to be able to say without contradiction that something has been achieved as a result of embryo research, which has cost the lives of so many embryos. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House at the end of the debate how many embryos have perished in the name of research. I estimate that many thousands have done so. I stand to be corrected on that. What has been achieved? What discovery has been made? What handicaps and their causes are now understood? Which congenital illnesses and conditions, which would not have been soluble, are now partially or entirely soluble?
      I cannot find such a statement. I can find promises of what may happen. I am told that embryo research is on the edge of a breakthrough. It seems that in reality the only part of human embryology and fertilisation that has actually borne fruit is in vitro fertilisation, which, unlike embryo research—if I may divide the subjects—is about creating life, not destroying it, and which I support. Apart from that, the answer seems to be virtually nothing.
      I shall quote from the Medical Research Council's document that was sent to us. That is a body, if ever there was one, that should be able to answer my question. It said:
      "If we could understand what causes chromosomal abnormalities in the egg and early pre-embryo it might be possible to suggest modifications of human behaviour and nutrition around the time of conception which would prevent many causes of, for example, Downs Syndrome. Such an understanding is already coming from MRC research on eggs

      91
      and pre-embryos. If research on human fertilisation is prohibited it will be more difficult to discover what goes wrong."
      Note that it says "more difficult", not that it will be impossible. It does not say that it must have embryo research, but that it would be more difficult if it did not. It is not my job to make its job easier, but to ask it to live up to certain ethical standards.
      Professor Martin Bobrow, the Prince Philip professor of paediatric research at Guy's hospital, has already been quoted. A document that he sent to me states:
      "There is no claim that work on pre-implantation embryos would lead to treatment of genetic disease."
      There is nothing definite in either the MRC's or the professor's statement. Someone may say, "Surely, there was that announcement last Thursday from the Hammersmith hospital about a breakthrough enabling the sex of an embryo to be established in the test tube, which could not have happened without research. Doesn't that mean that, if a handicap is carried in either the female or the male line, we can now select the embryo of the right sex as the one to be put back in the mother and so ensure a healthy baby? Isn't that proof that embryo research is bearing fruit?" It would be churlish of me to wonder why that knowledge came to light just before today's debate. One might describe it as a lucky coincidence. However, is that the whole story?
      I shall give the House an example from my own family. I had four cousins, two boys and two girls. One of the four, the youngest boy, contracted muscular dystrophy and died when he was 16 years old. I understand that muscular dystrophy is carried by women, but affects males. Bearing in mind the research carried out at Hammersmith hospital, which has been so trumpeted in the national press, and assuming my uncle and aunt had known of the test, would my one male cousin, who has survived, is now in his 60s and has his own family, have survived or would his embryo have been removed because it was male and there might have been the chance that he had muscular dystrophy? That is what is involved in the breakthrough, which is a terribly hit-and-miss method, a rough and ready selection by sex, whether or not the other embryos carry the defective gene.
      Have we not been told how research generates round the world? In those countries where, sadly, males are so much more valued and respected than females, might not that same research be used as a dreadful selection process whereby the sex was, or was not, in effect, a sentence of death?
      I return to the Medical Research Council's booklet and the other pro-research literature. Where are the hard, proven results of four years' research—it may be longer than four years—to dispel my doubts and make me argue that the work going on in the centres specialising in embryology, which annually use so many hundreds of embryos, potential humans, will allow me to go into the Lobby tonight and vote for the work to continue?
      It is no wonder that the sinister shadow of Dr. Mengele falls across this debate. We may say that that could not happen, but I can remember so well when we first heard of his experiments and thought that nobody in the world would ever consider replicating such dreadful experimentation. Yet here we are in the House of Commons solemnly putting forward the possibility of allowing research to take place on that embryo from which every human springs.
      92
      When embryo research is like surgery, or any other form of medical technique where saving and enhancing life is the sole object—I am not talking about embryos and post embryos—I shall suppport it. But now after four years, in which the medical profession has had free rein, so little has been achieved and so many tiny lives ended, the means do not seem to justify the end. Medicine and science should look elsewhere for the conditions that they are seeking to cure.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise: I rise with considerable humility to speak in this debate. We have heard many excellent speeches and many hon. Members have drawn on personal experiences and anxieties. I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who made an excellent case. She had experiences on which to draw. We heard the moving speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who witnessed the deaths of two handicapped children and who has previously told the House that, were it not for the fact that screening and abortion rights existed, he and his wife would not have felt able to go ahead and risk two further pregnancies which, happily, resulted in the births of two healthy boys.
      I have no such experiences on which to draw. I have been incredibly lucky and have two healthy children. I look for the disasters and anxieties in my life but, happily, they are missing. Therefore, I feel lucky and have a great sense of humility. I feel so lucky that it is almost scarey. But it gives me the opportunity and the duty to say, "I have been lucky, but that gives me a responsibility to think about those who are not so lucky." It is in that spirit that I have tried to follow the debate.
      I have found the debate difficult at times because many hon. Members have dealt in absolutes, which I could not do. We have heard that one cell is life—a human being. I cannot follow that line. I do not believe that the fertilised egg is a human being. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) told us that it is not a potential human being; it is an actual human being with potential. I cannot follow that line either. I cannot regard a cluster of undifferentiated cells, some of which will become placenta and others membranes, as a human being. As soon as we depart from absolute certainties we are into areas of degree and of judgment. There is no escaping that.
      I believe that sense is on my side in this argument. By no means will every fertilised egg result in a baby. A fertilised egg may try to develop in the tubes and may never reach the womb, so it will be impossible for it to become a human being. Its relationship to the mother is one of a malignant growth that will kill her if allowed to develop. So how can I agree with hon. Members who want me to regard such an entity as a human being?
      Such absolutes should not determine the course of the debate. There is no escaping using our own judgment—and I have found it difficult to make judgments. I resent the fact that those who see everything in absolute terms have encouraged the polarisation of debate. It has become difficult to stand back and examine the real problems, but I want to examine them.
      Of couse, it is possible that this research may be misused and that the permission given by the House tonight—I trust—will be misused. Many things are misused. The pen is misused for the most appalling purposes. The camera is and the computer likewise. Much of our scientific research and development is misused

      93
      before it gets off the ground, because its purpose is to develop ways of killing. We in the House regularly vote research and development money for the production of armaments that can kill millions, not clusters of undifferentiated cells, but men, women and children of all ages, from unborn babies to people on their deathbeds. I have not heard hon. Members saying that we should not vote that money; they do not adduce the sanctity of life argument on such occasions. Some of us make timid attempts to introduce it into those debates, but we do not get very far.
      Because things can be developed and used for good or evil we must make choices and he vigilant, to ensure that scientific processes are not misused. The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) said that he had begun with a bias in favour of this research but come to the opposite conclusion. I started with a bias in the opposite direction, because I am aware that one has only to say the words "science" or "progress" to make some people bow down in admiration of their supposed omnipotence. I do not agree with that; I have great scepticism about scientific endeavour. We must always be extremely careful that science is used ethically and in the pursuit of human happiness and well-being.
      I began my consideration of this matter with doubts. I do not agree with genetic manipulation, for instance. I have not arrived at my conclusion in an arbitrary way, but I have reached one. I shall vote against these amendments.
      8.45 pm
      When, as I hope we will, we vote to allow this research to continue, by that we shall not be saying that this is the only sort of research that should be done—certainly not. We are not saying that only this research can give hope to childless people. Society has a duty, incidentally, to take some of the pressure off childless couples. It is not only because of natural drives that people feel inadequate if they remain childless. Society puts a great deal of pressure on such people. telling them that they are inadequate, and it is important to remove such pressure.
      Many other lines of research need to be followed, but that does not mean that we should not go ahead with this research. Nor should too many resources be devoted to this line of approach—that would be another sort of misuse. I do not know where those who will vote with me tonight stand on this subject; I do not know how keen they are to elevate this line of research above others. But I am not. I want it permitted and carried out but kept in perspective.
      Many other needs have great claims on our resources. As a society, we are rather poor at deciding priorities. Nothing that I have heard in this House has led me to alter that view. We are not very good at deciding to devote enough resources to relieving the problems of handicapped people, the mentally ill or the elderly. We are not very good on the welfare of mothers and babies. Too many people live in bad housing and in miserable conditions, and that is avoidable. Nevertheless, my views on how we should use our resources do not mean that I think that we cannot devote any money to research of this kind. We shall need to preserve a reasonable balance, and that must always be a matter of judgment.
      That is why it is proper to use legislation. I should not want to allow scientists and doctors, much as I respect them and their work, to be the only and untrammelled judges in this matter. I want society to take a stand and use
      94
      its judgment, and in our democracy we do that through this House—not very well, but it is the avenue that we must use. Once the Bill is passed we shall have no excuse for saying that the matter is in other people's hands. It will continue to need our judgement of how to use legislation and of how much money to devote to it. That is entirely different from pretending that this is an issue of sheer absolutes.
      It is neither sensible nor sane to afford to an undifferentiated cluster of cells the respect for life that we should afford the pregnant woman or the new-born baby. If that sounds a little insulting, I must add that, until I heard the hon. Member for Newbury, I had intended to use very temperate language; and I have more or less managed it. I did not relish being told that those of us who want such research are looking for ways to assuage our consciences and that that is why we have chosen to make the division at 14 days. I can tell the hon. Member for Newbury that my conscience needs no assuaging. It is in perfectly good working order and is given regular practice.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Lady will know that I could not have been referring to her, because she had not spoken when I made that comment.
      Mrs. Wise: In that case, the hon. Gentleman has presumably been insulting all hon. Members who spoke before me and who said that they would vote for the legislation. That is an even more specific insult than the one that I thought the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
      I feel justified in saying that those of us who will vote for the research are not doing it unthinkingly. We are not doing it without conscience and thinking that that ends the matter for ever. Continued vigilance will be needed over the purposes for which the research will be used and the resources devoted to it. That is what life is like. We always have to make choices about priorities and it is reasonable for us to provide a legal framework within which such decisions and judgments can be exercised.
      Sir Ian Lloyd: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) by trading insults, because I am not very good at that. I could not help reflecting while she was speaking that during the debate we have seen scepticism and dogma chasing each other in a rather unusual geographical pattern. It is usually all scepticism on one side and all dogma on the other or vice versa. Of course, that is what makes a debate like this so interesting.
      Some time ago, I reached the conclusion that most of the very different problems that we address in the House are, in one form or another, boundary problems. Move the boundary or change the definition, and all hell breaks loose. When the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about where life starts, he was, of course, speaking about this fundamental boundary problem.
      We are most familiar with the geographical boundary, whether it is between nation states or empires or administrative jurisdictions, and with those between the public and private sectors, between categories of rights arid categories of obligation, between the interests of producer and consumer, between the old and the young, the sick and the healthy. In the welfare state, the vast regulatory apparatus of who claims for what and when and for how much provides hon. Members with an endless source of fertile and politically productive controversy.

      95
      We are less familiar with the boundary between the rational and the irrational. Although I wish to imply no obvious overlap of category between the scientific and the religious interpretations of a problem, research on the human embryo provides a classic and important illustration of the difficulty of definition and of prescribing legal boundaries in this area.
      I have read what I suppose is a small fraction of the vast amount of literature on the subject, and I understood a small part of what I read. I will gladly give way to any hon. Member who claims to have read and understood it all. In my endeavour to be thorough, I even attempted to read the colloquium held last year by the Royal Society, to which I shall return. Humility obliges me to confess that I probably fully understand only the odd paragraph here and there.
      From that I draw two immediate conclusions. The first is that those paragraphs were of great significance. The second is that the matter is of great scientific as well as moral complexity. To that I would add a third, which is that the House remains singularly ill-equipped to pass judgment on these issues. But it is a responsibility which we cannot escape. Alfred North Whithead put the position very well in his Lovell lectures at Harvard university over 60 years ago when he said:
      "The new tinge to modern minds is a vehement and passionate interest in the relation of general principle to irreducible and stubborn fact."
      In this case, however, it can be argued that the principles are stubborn and the facts of great complexity. Most of the facts are very new. They are the product of one of the greatest scientific revolutions that the human race has ever known.
      It is in this context that I should like to refer to a comment made during the Royal Society colloquium by a fellow of the Royal Society, Mr. J. H. Edwards of Oxford university:
      "In the application of genetics to man we are dealing with problems of such depth and gravity, and with methods for their resolution of such complexity that even those experts in neighbouring fields of study find communication difficult … false knowledge is a graver problem than clear ignorance."
      The complexity in this matter derives from three sources. The first is that the scientific revolution pioneered by Crick and Watson in the 1950s has now led to an understanding of the origins and structure of life which was inconceivable not only to theologians but to scientists as recently as the beginning of this century.
      Few of us can claim to be familiar with molecular biology, although some of us may appreciate its immense importance and potential. None of us can comment with the authority of a scientist working on frontiers of knowledge that are moving forward almost as we watch. Dogmatic judgments and conclusions which some of us may be tempted to reach will enjoy a half life of perhaps a few months.
      Secondly, the profound concerns arising from deeply held religious conviction, which express themselves quite legitimately and have done so in the debate in what is at best caution and at worst a total opposition to the advance of knowledge in this area fuels emotions and colours every debate.
      Thirdly, there is the concern that arises from the belief that human genetic engineering enables man to emulate God, not merely in His most benevolent role as Creator
      96
      but in those malevolent roles which mere man exhibits when presented with great power, whether political or scientific. The potential for abuse is ever-present here, as with all science, and the master-race concepts which inspired the appalling abuses of genetic engineering to which the Father of the House referred earlier have haunted Europe for half a century.
      The more awe-inspiring the scientific achievement, the more terrifying the potential for abuse. The discovery of DNA, the very blueprint of life, is certainly awe-inspiring, and when the full map of the human genome is known, probably within a decade, we shall have passed through a phase of civilisation as significant as, if not more significant than, that which distinguished the age of Galileo from that of Copernicus, or that of Einstein from that of Newton. Its political significance is almost beyond our comprehension. We have crossed a boundary of unprecedented importance.
      This analysis leads me to my first and most important conclusion: there is no going back. I would add to that: there should be no going back. Any attempt to do so would represent a triumph of obscurantist dogma over human achievement and aspiration.
      Our general conclusion must surely be that the advancement of science, on which our whole civilisation is based and now depends, cannot be stopped because we have suddenly discerned a universe of unimagined potential complexity, danger and challenge. The question tonight is whether ther can or should be an exception to this generalisation. Are the processes of human reproduction, particularly in the early stages of conception, to be declared by law a no-go area for science? Assuming that the case for that was made, three immediate questions arise. First, could such a ban be enforced? Secondly, on what grounds could it be argued that other no-go areas should not be created? Thirdly, can we predict the full consequences of a closed door on the frontiers of human knowledge?
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that a go area for science would imply a no-go area for morality? Some of us attach great importance to that, because we believe that science is not the be-all and end-all of life.
      9 pm
      Sir Ian Lloyd: I accept that science is not the be-all and end-all of life, but nor is morality. The complexities of life arise from the conflicts between these two important sets of criteria.
      The answer to my first question is an unequivocal no. There is no way to enforce it. Even in Britain, we could not police every laboratory dealing with molecular biology. Even if we could, that would merely inflame curiosity.
      To the second question, the answer is equally unequivocal. As science takes us nearer to the fundamentals of creation, whether through the outward reach of the Hubble telescope which is to be launched into space next week, or the inward reach of the scanning tunnel microscope, revealing for the first time the secrets of the living cell, we shall be presented with greater potential for good and evil, greater powers of intervention and greater challenges to orthodox dogmas of all kinds—religious, scientific and political. Close one door and fear of the future will have triumphed over all that the rational mind has achieved, from Aristotle to the discoverer of the

      97
      polymerase chain reaction, a man by the name of Kray Mullis, about whom the House may not have heard but of whom future generations will certainly know.
      As Alfred North Whitehead once said, there is
      "a Nemesis which awaits upon those who deliberately avoid avenues of knowledge".
      That applies both to the general case and to the specific example.
      I shall now attempt to deal briefly with the special case before us tonight—embryo research. Like most hon. Members, I have read with care the arguments based on the sacredness of human life. No one would dispute the concern, conviction or skill with which these have been presented in the papers sent to hon. Members and in the House this evening.
      However, as I read my science, nature has endowed life with two unique characteristics. The first is continuity. The human genome is, among other things, a map of that continuity. The formation of the conceptus is merely the point at which that continuity is ensured by the injection of genetic diversity. It happens, possibly, a few hundred million times a day. If the world is adding to its population daily a city the size of London, human survival is not threatened by a failure of that mechanism. The very success rate can properly be regarded as a threat to the planet, and this despite the fact that millions of embryos do not survive.
      The second characteristic is prodigality. Nature is prodigal in this area on the grandest scale, especially but not exclusively with our species. I do not believe for one moment that research into the human embryo will ever interfere significantly with that prodigality unless man discovers that the survival of our species requires a restraint in population growth that we can achieve in no other way. The elevation of the human conceptus into some sort of cult object is a somewhat artificial construction. The human race will not destroy itself by under-breeding. Nor will it take serious risks with its genetic endowment merely because it has improved its understanding of, and capacity to influence, that endowment.
      The very opposite may be true. Tragically, that endowment is often gravely impaired. We have heard some moving examples of that today. We know little of the reasons for the impairment. We know a great deal about the tragic consequences for afflicted individuals and families. Until recently, we have all been subject to the lottery of our genetic endowment. Now, over an ever-broadening horizon of knowledge and technique, related substantially, if not wholly, to embryo research, prevention has become a dramatic possibility.
      Here again, I enter a word of caution that is not mine but that of J. H. Edwards:
      "The nature of genetic lesions and the scale and variability of genetic material are such that we cannot assume that our remote descendants will have the competence to launder the genome to remove blemishes. If they have, they may not wish to live within the ethical and behavioural framework within which this is possible. Selection against multiple minor lesions would be so inefficient that it would involve either a minority of conceptusses surviving induced abortion or the majority of conceptions being in vitro".
      Mr. Edwards is right, and who are we to suggest otherwise?
      We are walking hopefully in the scientific foothills of a gigantic mountain range. Hitherto, man has had no option but to come to terms with a serious burden of genetic impairment, but now he can look ahead, perhaps a long
      98
      way, to its eventual elimination. If the House will permit me, I seek reinforcement for my conclusion from Alfred North Whitehead. He reminded us that
      "successful organisms modify their environment so as to assist one another."
      We have recently discovered that among man's most significant environments is his genetic code. For us to foreswear the assistance which science can provide in modifying that code to the advantage of the human race would be an indefensible abdication of responsibility. It would cross the portcullis of this place with a most sinister and destructive bar.
      It was once said of Spinoza that he was drunk with God. There is, I accept, an equal danger that modern man can become drunk with science. If I am compelled to choose, as we are by this measure tonight, I have no doubt which form of inebriation I prefer—even if, as I suspect, they are not mutually exclusive.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      The Chairman: Order. Twelve hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and there remain 85 minutes of debating time. The arithmetic is obvious. To reduce the disappointment of not being called to participate in the debate, I appeal for brief speeches.
      Mr. Hind: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, Mr. Walker, and I shall be brief.
      We are debating an issue that attracts strong feelings. Like many other hon. Members, I have received many letters on the subject. I also received a petition signed by 800 constituents urging me to vote for amendment No. 1. At 7 o'clock this evening, one of my constituents felt that she had to send me a telephone message that she is against embryo research. That is the sort of feeling that the issue attracts.
      I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) that those of us who will be voting for amendment No. 1 are in favour of research. We feel, however, that there needs to be some recognition of the limitations on research and a recognition of when life begins. Those issues lie at the root of the problems. My hon. Friend talked about the foothills of the gigantic mountain range of scientific research. I say to him and to all Members of this place that there must be signposts on those foothills, and that is exactly what amendment No. 1 will provide.
      Science cannot be the be-all and end-all; there must be control. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, we must decide fundamentally when life begins. For me, the essential part of life is when the ovum and sperm join at the moment of conception, whether that is inside the womb or outside in the case of IVF. It seems that it is an insult to common sense to suggest that there can be a 14-day gap from that moment during which some hon. Members wish to allow research to take place. It is being said that there is some sort of limbo in which life does not exist. Life must begin at the moment of conception, and from that point it must be respected and, therefore, protected. We must give guidelines to the law. As a lawyer, I can tell the Committee that there is no specific definition of when life begins. Voting for amendment No. 1 will lay down a definition of where we the law-makers, supported by scientific evidence, believe that life begins.
      Once that has been laid down, it can be followed by a series of protections for the unborn child. I do not accept

      99
      that the fertilised embryo is, for the first 14 days, merely a cluster of undifferentiated cells. It is the source of life from which life grows and it must be respected as part of life. It is not good enough for hon. Members to say that in the gap from day one to day 14 nothing happens, that it does not exist, and that in some way it is a pre-embryo that has no life, no personality, no existence. That is nothing more than an excuse for those who support research to justify what they have done and what they intend to do in the future under the Bill.
      As opponents of the Bill have said, is the 14-day limit just the beginning? Will it be 16 days in two years' time and then 18 days? As the frontiers of science march forward and we discover other areas of research, will it end here? We must stand firm and give a lead. We must give a definition and provide a framework for the future, both for the law and for science. It is our duty to establish that, and no one else will take on that duty. Although we are laymen, it is a duty that we must accept.
      We must consider what embryo research has achieved over the past four years. In contrast with non-embryo research, it has achieved little. There have been major developments in cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, sickle cell anaemia and Down's syndrome. That is where the major achievements have taken place. If we were to take away embryo research, we should be only partially closing the door on research in those areas. We would be doing so for sound moral reasons because we would be protecting life, providing definition to it and giving a framework of morality to what we are doing. Those of us who respect life will recognise that it is important to do that. The pro-research group Progress has admitted that
      "research using human embryos is not and never has been concerned with the treatment of genetic or chromosomal abnormalities."
      I am proud to say that I have two healthy children, but we struggled to have them. I am not prepared to say that I will bury the ethos of life so that others may find it easier. I struggled, but I accept that it was worth while. I know the pain that parents suffer to have children, but it is worth while. In vitro fertilisation is not outlawed by the Bill. Many methods of studying infertility are still open to research and many of them have achieved results.
      I am a Christian and, like many hon. Members, I put the Christian view. I stress that there are alternative methods of research——
      Mr. Couchman rose——
      Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend knows that, in normal circumstances, I would give way to him. He may have the opportunity to speak later.
      There are many alternative avenues of research into the problems of handicap and infertility. By opening the door tonight, we shall only encourage further research in areas where major successes have already been achieved. I urge the Committee to vote in favour of amendment No. 1 and against the Bill as drafted.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. David Blunkett: I speak with greater diffidence than usual, because I have no absolutes to offer. We seek the balance of reason, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) that
      100
      we must be cautious in our appraisal of scientific claims and of the suggestion that science and progress automatically go hand in hand.
      At the root of tonight's debate is the religious belief held by those who oppose clause 11 as drafted—that life begins before implantation in the wall of the uterus and therefore that the cluster has life in its own right. Those who hold that belief will feel instinctively and absolutely that they should oppose embryo research.
      Despite the fact that it is impossible to convince such people to vote in favour of embryo research, it is wrong of right hon. and hon. Members who share their view to raise the spectre of Dr. Mengele. To suggest that trying to monitor, regulate and otherwise properly control embryo research is in some way unacceptable is to turn logic on its head. It is important to regulate, control, monitor and to place parameters on the extent to which science can tread in areas about which right hon. and hon. Members cannot be certain, and so get a grip on the anxieties and concerns that are shared by all right hon. and hon. Members, and which are the reason for their presence tonight.
      I agree that embryo research is only a small part of the scientific investigation that is necessary to tackle the problems of infertility and genetic disabilities—in particular, the degenerative diseases that cause so much suffering not only to those who contract them but their families and friends. They must often endure the consequences of those handicaps in the most destructive circumstances, in which society washes its hands of its responsibilities and leaves to their own devices those who are least able to cope. I know of families who struggled to receive support from their communities and who rely on perhaps a handful of individuals, or on only one or two persons, to see them through their moments of crisis.
      I have received more correspondence on this issue, as have other right hon. and hon. Members, than anything other than the subject on which I have a primary responsibility as an Opposition spokesman. I tried to consider carefully the often conflicting balance of scientific evidence, and I have reached the conclusion that not believing—as I do not—that life begins before the implantation of the embryo in the wall of uterus, makes regulated, monitored and properly controlled research justifiable. It is justified in terms of infertility and of helping people so that the child that they bear does not have a degenerative disease. If someone had the opportunity to have a daughter who was free of a degenerative disease, I would expect them to take it.
      An issue that has perhaps not received as much attention as those two issues tonight is the very opposite of infertility—finding a safe and acceptable method of contraception, which will work in the less developed world. In Britain and in the developed world, where health education is greatest, we can help and encourage people to use methods of contraception that are safe for the user and that work, but that is not true of the vast majority of countries.
      Now that there has been a change in the international climate, I do not believe—I say this with some temerity—that the threat of nuclear annihilation, diseases such as AIDS or global warming are the greatest dangers that the world faces. It is over-population that threatens us. The very life that we have debated tonight is threatened by it—the ability to feed ourselves and to cope with the developments that we are discussing. If we can use research in the 14-day period that we are discussing to

      101
      develop a safe and sensible method of contraception that works, we shall have done more for the future of humanity than anything that has been achieved so far.
      Men respect the fact that they have expected women to bear the burden of contraception, and that was wrong. Therefore, as men, we have a special responsibility to find a solution for the future. That is why I shall vote against the amendment.
      Mr. Key: The debate has progressed this afternoon and this evening. It has become better and better. Those hon. Members who sat through the Second Reading debate, and through some five hours of debate today, must agree that a great level of knowledge has developed on both sides of the argument during the past few weeks.
      I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, and I congratulate him on his perspicacious remarks about world population.
      We are here tonight because the scientific community has told the House that they cannot take such decisions, and that is only right. I have no doubt that they will come back to us again in future years on such issues.
      The hon. member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) missed the point. It is precisely because scientists do not want to make a decision that they have come to us. We are not ill equipped to take such decisions and it is precisely because we are the House of Commons that we are in the best position to make them. We should not shirk that responsibility. Most of us are not medical or scientific experts. I certainly am not, but I seek to represent people's views and to make a judgment, and that is what it is all about.
      One of the least attractive aspects of the debate in the past few weeks has been that lobbying from both sides has become a little strident. I shall seek to remain calm and cool for a few moments.
      No one is being forced to take part in human fertilisation and embryology research and it is important to recognise that fact. No parents and no medical men or women are being forced to take part. I reject the concept that those who have a particular moral or scientific viewpoint should prohibit others who may wish to take advantage of particular procedures and who may have a different moral outlook on life. However, it is also important that we should get a few facts right. Much attention has been paid to what has been happening in Australia. My information is perfectly straightforward. When various states decided to outlaw IVF research, the Australians set up clinics in Singapore. The research continued in Singapore for the benefit of Australians, so arguments in that respect are completely sterile.
      I am sorry that we spent so much time making capital out of the term "pre-embryo". It has been said that that term is a figment of the imagination of a wicked scientist. Far from it. It has also been argued that the term "pre-embryo" does not appear in medical dictionaries. However, a few years ago the term "AIDS" was not included in medical dictionaries. The term is an example of progress.
      I want to refer to some of the important ethical arguments that have been deployed, not least today in The Times. It was interesting to note the article on one page by the Archbishop of York and, on the other, a letter from the Archbishop of Westminster and others, which I read with great interest. The Archbishop of Westminster wrote:
      102
      "From the beginning of the fertilisation process, … the embryo is new human life. This fact alone should govern its status, dignity and rights under the law … We cannot justifiably do wrong even for a right reason or a noble cause."
      I found that a very interesting and novel Christian argument, let alone moral or ethical argument. I was brought up on books about the just war argued by clerics. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), who intervened in the debate a few hours ago, was right to taunt one of my hon. Friends by asking whether he was a pacifist because he was opposed to embryo research. That is a very important point which we must address.
      The Archbishop of York stated in his article in The Times:
      "Genetic union is decisive in that it produces a unique genetic formula, but it does not at that stage produce a unique and identifiable organism."
      The archbishop then cited the question of twins. He continued:
      "If the morally significant dividing line occurs when there is a physical entity in which unique moral value can be perceived, this transition would seem to mark that change, though this is not to imply that the developing conceptus before differentiation lacks all moral status … Moral arguments such as these rest on the interpretation of scientific evidence, and it should not be surprising if sincere and godly people disagree."
      And so say all of us.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Key: I will give way only if my right hon. Friend will reply to my letter of 12 April in which I asked him to explain his attack on me and other members of the Medical Research Council.
      Sir Bernard Braine: At that time I was recovering from a criminal assault and I could not reply. If my hon. Friend is adducing scientific evidence in support of his case, what advances have been made in the treatment of genetic disease—any genetic disease—by experimenting with embryos?
      Mr. Key: I should not have given way to my right hon. Friend, but I always give way to the Father of the House. We discussed that issue while my right hon. Friend was out of the Chamber. As has been stated frequently, it is a complete red herring to argue that anyone in favour of this research claims that it can cure genetic disease. That is a figment of my right hon. Friend's imagination.
      We all want to reduce human suffering in so far as that is possible. We all agree that it is not permissible under any circumstances to perform destructive experiments on human beings, but we disagree about the definitions of human being. We all agree that experiments on living cellular components of human beings such as blood cells, sperm, skin cells and egg cells are permissible under reasonable conditions. Therefore, I believe that those who are opposed to research must consider the matter. These are signs of cellular life when there is an active metabolism, when the cell needs nutrition and when it can divide. If we accept that such cells have full human status, all human medicine and biology must cease, because every blood cell and every other cell must enjoy precisely the same right.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Key: No, I shall not give way again.

      103
      This is an important ethical and moral argument, not a scientific argument. Science is not the right framework for addressing issues of value, soul or humanity. For that central reason, the scientific parts of the argument deployed by the Bill's opponents are not only acrimonious but rather pointless. Human status is acquired more gradually as development proceeds, and very early post-conceptual stages are entitled to some but not absolute respect and protection. That was also the view of the Warnock report. The difference is an intuitive value judgment and it cannot be sensibly resolved by debate on the genetic or metabolic attributes of the cells involved. That is precisely why the issue must be settled in Parliament rather than in the laboratory.
      I do not wish to detain the House. We should address many detailed points in the future, but I shall put one important argument. Experimentation on pre-embryos does not pose a new moral problem. The essential principles have been accepted by society for many years. Most European societies, including our own, have accepted the use of the intra-uterine contraceptive device—the coil—various forms of oral contraception and the use of menstrual regulation to precipitate a delayed menstrual period. Each involves the loss of pre-implantation embryos. We do not regard that as unethical or illegal and we do not mourn the loss.
      Those who oppose research none the less accept that, when there are more pre-embryos than can be placed safely into the womb, those remaining shall be allowed to perish. If pre-embryos perish in the process of research, how do they differ from those that perish by neglect? In the first case, they yield information that may help to improve the successful survival of future pre-embryos as a result of improvements in clinical practice. Is it not proper, therefore, to conclude that, for as long as the techniques of IVF are being used therapeutically, to oppose research is unethical?
      There is, of course, arbitrariness in imposing any legal barrier across any continuum, which is what I believe life is. Ultimately the decision about where to place the barrier will be determined by a balance between benefits and losses. Whether or not to allow research during the first 14 days depends primarily on whether we believe strongly enough that it really is a worthwhile objective to provide couples with the opportunity to have a healthy baby. If we decide that that is a worthwhile objective, it should be pursued with the least possible trauma to patients and the least possible loss and wastage of pre-embryos. That is what regulated pre-embryo research is trying to achieve. Enlightenment cannot be undone.
      Mr. Alan Amos: This issue is not medical but moral. We all know what medical science and nuclear physicists can do. The question is whether we should allow them to do it. We know that natural selection already takes place in the process of fertilisation. Why should man interfere with that process and try to play God? If we agree to the 14-day period, this will be the most permissive legislation ever enacted, and it will put the United Kingdom increasingly out of line with European countries.
      The so-called licensing controls would not safeguard the human embryo, any more than safeguards built into the Abortion Act 1967 have prevented abortion on demand, mostly for social rather than medical reasons. Of
      104
      course the 14-day time limit would soon be challenged and we would be hearing calls for 21 days, 28 days and so on. Dr. Anne McLaren, who was a member of the Warnock committee, has already been talking about 16 and 17 days. Once we go down that road, we shall not be able to stop. Therefore, it is best that we do not start in the first place.
      We were told last week, with extraordinarily convenient and suspicious timing, that sex can be identified three days after fertilisation, and male embryos were already being destroyed. Given that knowledge, it simply will not be possible to prevent selection on social rather than medical grounds, as has happened under the abortion legislation.
      I am not and never have been against IVF, but I oppose the deliberate artificial creation of human life simply to destroy it. No other branch of medicine would allow the destruction of life to test new techniques. If passed, clause 11 will allow the in vitro embryo to be frozen, discarded, donated, sold and used for destructive research.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Amos: No, I am afraid that I really must get on.
      Mr. Dalyell: But the hon. Gentleman has misquoted the doctor.
      Mr. Amos: I cannot give way. I really must get on.
      On that basis the embryonic human being is therefore nothing more than an object; it is another example of the throwaway society that says, if it is not useful or convenient, get rid of it. But it is more than that. We are not talking about treatment and cure, but about culling and search-and-destroy operations—in other words, selective breeding. If we allow that, we shall be demonstrating yet again the extent to which we live in a moral vacuum.
      The basis of my argument is that human life begins at conception. That is a moral and medical position. The basic medical textbook, "The Developing Human—Clinically Orientated Embryology" by K. L. Moore states:
      "The development of a human being begins with fertilisation, a process by which a sperm from a male, unites with an ovum from a female."
      The Geneva convention code of medical ethics reasserted the traditional principles of medical ethics in 1949 when it stated:
      "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat. I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."
      It is significant that respect for human life applies from the moment of conception. The declaration of Helsinki, the main statement on medical ethics concerning research on human beings, adopted by the World Medical Association said:
      "The doctor can combine medical research with professional care, the objectives being the acquisition of new medical knowledge, only to the extent that medical research is justified by its potential diagnostic or therapeutic value for the patient"—
      in this case, the embryo.
      "In research on man, the interests of science and society should never take precedence over considerations relating to the well being of a subject."
      Human life begins at conception, not some flexible time limit determined by scientists or politicians, regardless of how uncomfortable that fact may be.
      The use of the word "pre-embryo" dates back to the Warnock report and is designed to dehumanise the human

      105
      embryo. Nature magazine—one of the most respected scientific journals in Britain—suggested on 14 May 1987 that the medical profession should
      "ban the use of the word 'pre-embryo' used by the voluntary authority as a synonym for a fertilised human ovum not yet implanted in a uterus. Put simply, this usage is a cop-out, a way of pretending that the public conflict about IVF and other innovations in human embryology can be made to go away by means of an appropriate nomenclature. The fact is that a fertilised human egg is as much deserving of being called an embryo as is a fertilised frog's egg."
      Therefore, life begins at conception. An embryo is a living, growing, developing human being. If it is not life or human, what is it?
      It must be stressed that, at the moment, it is not possible to identify or learn about the development of diseases by using human embryos before the target tissues has developed.
      There is no evidence that outlawing the use of human embryos will prevent improvements in the IVF technique. Dr. John McLean has clearly shown that, in South Australia and Victoria, where there are bans, IVF development continues on a par with anywhere else in the world. The results, as measured by live births, are among the best in the world. All the work that has yielded results on genetic diseases so far has been carried out on live patients. Every cell of the body contains all the genetic information necessary. Cells can be taken from adult patients with a genetic disease to reveal how the genes produce abnormalities. No such information has been obtained from the use of human embryos.
      As Progress has said:
      "Research using human pre-embryos is not and never has been concerned with the treatment of genetic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities, rather, it is concerned with prevention."
      Therefore, all the work on embryos is aimed at embryo biopsy, a technique that scientists hope to develop so that they can identify and destroy any afflicted embryos. Even here, deliberate attempts have been made to mislead the public into believing that embryo research will be a cure-all for every type of disease.
      When society begins to use terms such as "pre-embryo", "product of conception" or "cluster of cells", it has begun to forget the essence of human life—that it is human, that it begins at conception, and, therefore, that it is to be respected. Let there be no doubt that the embryo research advocated in this country is aimed not at finding a cure for diseases but at weeding out and destroying affected individuals.
      Chillingly, Progress has said:
      "Only those pre-embryos that are diagnosed as being free from the genetic defect would be transferred to the woman's uterus."
      The answer to finding a true cure for many of the genetic diseases suffered today is to follow the example of tried and tested procedures from some of the most respected scientists in the world. Professor Jerome Lejeune, and others discovered the cause of Down's syndrome. He has stated:
      "The new developments in molecular biology applied to cells taken from adult patients with cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and Huntington's disease have generated much greater understanding of the genetic factors responsible for these diseases. None of these achievements has involved the use of human embryos."
      106
      Experiments must be allowed only if they benefit individual human embryos themselves and are not simply search-and-destroy missions where human life is sacrificed for human convenience.
      Much has been made of IVF in recent years and of its ability to produce children where the natural method has failed. When we talk about childless couples and infertility, we cannot fail to feel sympathy for them. However, it is another matter to say that the solution to infertility is artificially to create too much life and dispose of the unwanted. IVF, which is the deliberate creation of human life in the test tube, presents doctors and scientists with a dilemma. Not wanting to call it human, they dehumanise it and justify any destruction by referring to a "pre-embryo" or "cluster of cells". But any embryo that implants and starts to grow is immediately called a human being. Women do not say, "I am expecting a cluster of cells," or, "I am carrying a pre-embryo." They call it what it is—a baby. It is a unique human being from the moment of conception, not from 14 days or the appearance of the primitive streak.
      It has been quoted ad nauseam that Robert Winston claimed recently on a television programme that the success rate for IVF was about 8 per cent. Yet a brochure produced by the clinics that sell IVF treatments to infertile couples, including Robert Winston's facilities, says that the success rate varies from 15 per cent. to 35 per cent. It seems that, when they want public sympathy, scientists say that the success rate is low, but when they want the public's money the success rate grows.
      Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Amos: I am sorry, but I must conclude.
      The Bill will not ban IVF. We must try to achieve a total ban on the artificial creation, and destruction of spare embryos and experimentation on them. Multiple implantation means multiple destruction. Where multiple pregnancies occur, it is common either to abort the surplus or, now, to choose selective reduction, which involves choosing which unborn children, as they will become, are to be killed because too many were implanted in the first place. Naturally, people will say that it is killing not a child, but a pre-embryo, a cluster of cells or the product of conception.
      The creation of individual embryos for implantation through IVF can be justified provided that the embryo is transferred to the mother. The work of Dr. John McLean of Manchester university has shown that infertility treatments do not necessarily involve the creation of surplus embryos. His success rate is much higher than that achieved by current IVF procedures.
      IVF is inefficient, expensive, time-consuming and dangerous for women. It can lead to cysts, coagulation, strokes, heart problems, ovarian cancer and many other problems. Babies born from IVF have three times the rate of low birth weight, five times the spina bifida rate and four times the perinatal death rate.
      The technology exists for infertility treatment that avoids the artificial creation of human life. For humanity's sake, let us use it. Can we as a society ever justify the creation of human life for purposes which have no bearing on that particular life or the use of that human life so that inevitably it has a limited future? For many research scientists, that is immaterial. To create life for whatever

      107
      purpose, even if it is just to prove that it can be done, is enough. For others, the idea that life is created outside the human body is justification that it is not human.
      To allow human embryo research is to infringe the moral rule that we should not use others for our own needs. What use is the Hippocratic oath, the Helsinki declaration or any other definition of moral values, if the people whom we trust—doctors, scientists and politicians—constantly and persistently abuse their special positions and live the lie that the unborn child is not alive and is not human?
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The wind-up speeches are expected to begin at 10.30 pm. Many hon. Members have sat through almost the entire debate, so I appeal once more for short speeches.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. David Martin: I speak briefly, with no specialist medical or theological knowledge. I have given deep thought to the arguments for and against, particularly those advanced by many of my constituents. I have been helped considerably by the debates here and in another place, particularly by the contributions of Lord Walton.
      The overriding reason why I shall vote in favour of embryo research being permitted to continue up to 14 days under strict licensing regulations is that I am as sure as I can be on the evidence that such research is likely to contribute to better information at the earliest possible stage in the development of human life, where there is a serious risk of giving birth to a baby suffering from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be severely handicapped, so as to make the best contribution towards preventing such births. I emphasise prevention, not cure.
      I was particularly impressed with the wise, moving speeches of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on Second Reading and again today. Some insist on distorting this powerful reason for voting in favour of the research under the conditions set out in the Bill by accusing those who believe in it of a lack of care and concern for the severely handicapped who are already born. Such accusations are wholly unfair.
      There is no conflict whatever in wishing, as I and many others do, to alleviate the suffering and protect the lives of individuals who are handicapped and whose handicap affects them and often their families, and wishing to allow research to continue, which assists in preventing the birth of further individuals to such a life. It is not a lack of concern for the sanctity of human life that makes most parents think or say anxiously immediately their baby is born, "Is the baby all right?" It is human nature and it is a normal understandable reaction. Given the choice, most people would simply not bring into the world a baby afflicted with a severe handicap which few know about, apart from institutions or families who cope lovingly and as best they can for years afterwards.
      I strongly believe that it is unreasonable for those who are against late abortions—who is not against late abortions in an ideal world?—to want to ban research that would prevent many of them. Such people are against
      108
      what is called destructive experimentation on the embryo yet would rather act in such a way as to permit the continuance of the destruction of a foetus later rather than to permit selective degeneration or the perishing of affected embryos, as nature does, healthy or not, at the earliest cell stage of life.
      That degeneration occurs in circumstances far less distressing to the mother, father and family concerned. Far from being destructive in intent in the wider sense, embryo research is designed to improve the chances of bringing to full term another embryo that would not otherwise have been born. That assists creation, not destruction.
      Mr. Alton rose——
      Mr. Martin: No, I shall not give way.
      The embryo research that is likely to proceed if we vote for its continuance will carry on according to the highest traditions and purpose of medical science as has been practised for many years. It is a force for a better life, not a worse one, and it will not lead to destruction. The slurs that I have heard on the medical profession and medical science are not justified by the evidence of many years.
      Each major advance in medical knowledge and technique, from corpse dissection to the transplant of organs, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has already referred, was originally attacked as unacceptable and only later became an established and revered practice. I have no doubt that that will be the fate of embryo research and I hope that it will be able to continue as a result of our votes tonight.
      Mr. Frank Field: In a sense, I shall follow the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), as I believe that it does the House no credit, nor does it further the argument if we try to impute motives, to either side. Earlier speeches have put forward a moral stance even if I disagreed with them. I hope that my contribution will be received in a manner similar to that which I am more that happy to concede to those who have a view different from my own.
      It would be impossible for any hon. Member who has, over the years, heard contributions from the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) to impute anything other than the highest motives to them even if, on the balance of argument, one comes to disagree with them.
      Although some who have contributed to the debate find it easy to take a clear moral stance, I am not one of them. My moral stance is made up after seeking the balance of argument. Although my position is not as extreme as the one I shall quote, it is similar to those fighter pilots, American and British who, in the second world war, were asked to bomb German towns. They did so because they thought it was correct as part of the war effort, although they believed it was morally wrong. As a consequence, many of those pilots ceased to go to church or to receive the sacraments because they were so confused by the position into which they were put. When I have to reach a moral stance, I often find that I am in the twilight zone, the grey area, with those pilots rather than in the broad sunshine in which some people find themselves when they are able to pronounce that one position is moral and another immoral.
      No one who heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) could doubt that she put forward a moral stance based on trying to extend

      109
      human happiness. Most advocates of such a utilitarian view would hedge that objective with the important qualification that, while happiness is important, it cannot be promoted by itself, or one could devise all sorts of policies that would make people happy even if it meant the death of other individuals.
      I emphasise that both sides are putting forward a moral argument, which should be respected on both sides of the House. It is because it is a moral issue that the deployment of arguments by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East about what Gallup polls say is highly irrelevant to our arguments. If he were right, we would not need to be here and our constituents could decide all moral issues on the basis of Gallup polls.
      Their decision on hanging would be different from mine. Doubtless, many minority positions, which I try to protect and, to some extent, promote in this House, would also be under severe attack if our only argument were to consider Gallup polls. It is important to know what the nation is thinking, but when deciding moral issues it is not a deciding factor.
      The 14-day argument has taken on a significance in this debate which it does not have in the Warnock report. When one reads what Michael Banner has said about Warnock, one is struck by the arbitrary way in which Warnock had to pick a date, not for the embryo's protection, but for our protection. If a line were not drawn, at what point would the experiments cease? It was decided that the limit should be 14 day limit, not just because streaking then occurs but because, in the Warnock report, there is clear evidence that the cluster of cells before 14 days, although some are protein cells on which others feed, contains important characteristics borne by each of us, even down to the colour of our eyes.
      We must be clear that the 14 day limit arbitrarily chosen by Warnock was not chosen, as some people mistakenly believe, to protect the embryo, but to protect what follows from the embryo, to call a halt and show where experiments should stop. Although the argument now is that few scientists ask for experiments beyond 14 days, that was not the argument originally put forward in our early days of discussion on this measure. It is one of the tributes to the House that what we have said has, to some extent, influenced the scientific community, and it is right that it should have done so.
      When we consider the 14-day rule, we are, in one form, raising the fear of many people that, if experiments are approved, even on a limited canvas, we shall be on a slippery slope from which it will be difficult to escape. While the House is indebted to Lady Warnock for her report—even if, on balance, some of us disagree with it—it is surprising that she started us on that slippery slope by the contributions that she was reported to have made during the weekend.
      If one says that hereditary titles are so important that we should be able to give those families the right to select whether they have a male or female child, how can we argue against the case that Muslims put forward because they value male children more than female children? They will want the same privileges as hereditary peers may be granted if Lady Warnock has her way.
      There is a worry about the slippery slope and we must confront it in our debates. I take issue with the Father of the House——
      Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend mentioned a slippery slope. Surely he will agree that the Bill presents no opportunity for people to choose, purely on the grounds of preference, which sex they would like their child to have for hereditary purposes. Is it not therefore rather misleading to talk about a slippery slope when my hon. Friend knows full well that any such proposal would have to return to the House and be voted on, with the likelihood of its being overwhelmingly voted down?
      10 pm
      Mr. Field: I was going on to say that the Father of the House was not apparently prepared to accept a challenge in the way that some of us are prepared to accept it. Although we have not debated hereditary purposes it has been argued that if it is known that a male or female child is the carrier of a certain hereditary disease we should not force the mother to have implanted in her an embryo that would carry such an hereditary defect. Even though others might not agree, I say unequivocally that we should not put her in such a position.
      I bow to the Father of the House in the matter of what is supposed to be in the schedules to the Bill but I shall be looking for a form of experimentation done on a limited scale to stated individuals. If the schedules do not provide for that, we shall return to the issue on Report, even though I shall be voting, given the crude choice that we face, against experimentation up to 14 days.
      The gains that we have made from experimentation are a gift of God, just as life itself is, although I know that our ability to discover is not always matched by our ability to behave humanely. Some of the awful events of this century testify to that.
      I end with some of the comments of Miriam Rothschild:
      "Looking back at the first half of my life as a zoologist I am particularly impressed by one fact: none of the teachers, lecturers, or professors with whom I came into contact—and that includes my kindly father—none of the directors of laboratories where I worked, and none of my co-workers, ever discussed with me, or each other in my presence, the ethics of zoology. Nor did they ask me what I was trying to do, what were my zoological aims and aspirations, and in what framework I saw the life-cycles I was elucidating. No one ever suggested that one should respect the lives of animals in the laboratory or that they, and not the experiments, however fascinating and instructive, were worthy of greater consideration."
      We must strike a balance tonight—not about animals, because the debate has rightly moved on from them. I refer to a balance between the beginning of life and the gains that can clearly come from experiments on some embryos.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: On Second Reading I declared an interest in that I said that my wife and I had undergone an IVF procedure as a result of which my wife is expecting twins.
      I have always been and I remain opposed to destructive embryo experimentation. I should like to read from a letter that I received this morning:
      "I am writing to you to hope that you and your wife enjoy a very happy Parenthood. Now you are all right Jack—Sod us lot! So you go off and put in your little vote and let the rest of us carry on suffering."
      The point that the lady makes is fair if somewhat blunt, and Members of the House and several members of the medical profession have put the same point to me more politely.

      111
      It will not surprise the House to learn that I want to devote my few minutes to a single point: how can it be consistent on the one hand to be in favour of the IVF procedure and on the other to be against destructive experiments on embryos? That position, which is also the pro-life position, must hinge on the question: is it necessary to have destructive research for a successful IVF programme?
      The subject of South Australia has come up time and again. I should like to quote from a letter from Professor Winston. We are fortunate to have him in the Strangers' Gallery listening to the debate. I think that it was a letter to a medical journal, and it says:
      "Since research was banned there, Melbourne's clinical results have languished."
      In that letter, he also refers to "Melbourne in South Australia."
      The letter prompted a reply from a senator in South Australia—from the Hon. Dr. Ritson, a senator and a doctor of medicine. He comments in some detail and says:
      "Melbourne is not in South Australia. The city of Adelaide is the capital of South Australia … More important than the geographical blunder, is the significance of the successful pioneering of IVF work in Adelaide, which achieved world recognition."
      The pioneering work has taken place since the ban was imposed.
      The letter goes on:
      "the upper house of Parliament in South Australia appointed a Select Committee to examine the wide range of concerns raised by IVF and related matters. I was a member of that committee. I am also a medical practitioner. The Committee sat for three years … Contrary to Professor Winston's assertion that in South Australia we no longer have flourishing IVF programmes I believe the technical data in the report I have sent you indicate the level of current success and compares favourably with world standards. It may be true that there are a few scientists here who are disappointed at the legislative obstruction of particular research projects … but there is no scientific lobby here for change … not only have clinics flourished since the legislation was enacted"—
      that legislation is almost identical to what we call for in amendment No.1—
      "but also the public controversy has died down".
      I have quoted the example of South Australia, but could equally look at Norway, which abolished destructive research on embryos in 1987. I believe that it now has the highest number of IVF treatments per head of population of any country. Germany is about to go down the same route. The Government there are about to enact legislation almost identical to what is proposed in amendment No. 1, which the Government are allowing us to debate, and the German Government are under pressure from the Opposition to go even further.
      I should like to leave the Committee with a final thought. I received a letter from a couple with an infertility problem. It says:
      "We are an infertile couple opposed to embryo experimentation. We know many other infertile couples, and as far as we know not one of them approves of embryo experimentation, yet as far as the media are concerned we don't exist. We have written countless letters to newspapers and rung up television phone-ins, but no one will let us put our point of view, because it undermines the most common defence of such experimentation—that we must have it to help infertile couples. No one should underestimate the immense pain of infertility"—
      I can certainly second that—
      112
      "but it's a principle in all civilised societies that we don't destroy other human beings, at whatever stage of development, as a means to an end, no matter how good that end might be in itself."
      The letter goes on to say that one of the couple suffers from spinal muscular atrophy. The last sentence of the letter is significant:
      "Our society is developing a deep sickness when we treat children like selecting goods from a supermarket".
      We have a serious epidemic of child abuse in my constituency. Without wishing to go out of order, I should like to say that the beginning of the abortion culture in this country 23 years ago was the point at which the statistics for child abuse started to turn up. For that reason I shall vote against embryo experimentation.
      Mr. Burt: I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate. I sometimes wish that our constituents who are so certain on the matter could have an opportunity to listen to our debates or leaf through the full copy of Hansard to learn about the balance of views. If they did that, they would realise that being a Member of Parliament is sometimes not an easy job, especially when we have to decide on issues such as this.
      Respect for human life, its sanctity, the right to life and the quality of life are at the heart of the greatest debates in this place. Party political matters come and go. The political cataclysm of yesterday is in the historical footnote of tomorrow. The issues that concern the essence and existence of human beings are the real stuff of parliamentary debates.
      Science has brought us a matter that our forebears could not have dreamt that we would be talking about, and an issue that finds us bandying terms about which, unless we are insufferably arrogant, we should admit that we knew little until we were elected to this place. Science is right to come here, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, because it is right that it should look to a moral lead from this place, however unworthy it may be. It is right to do so because, if we accept that we do not wish to live, as we do not, in a means-to-and-end scientific climate, then somebody must set the rules.
      We bow to the men and women in their white coats because of their knowledge of their subject, which they will know up to Nobel-prize winning ability. However, on the morals or ethics of that work, their opinion is worth no more than mine, that of any other hon. Member, or that of the humblest of our electors who had troubled to turn his mind to the rights and wrongs of an issue. That is why it is so necessary that we look at the matter.
      One point has not captured the public imagination as it should—the alternatives to such research. There has been a tendency, particularly in the media, to portray the two sides in the battle as stark. On the one side are the scientists who, by and large, agree that embryo research is for the good and should be supported, because if it does not continue, all research into genetic disorder and infertility will come to an end. The other sides is often portrayed as a moralist, usually religious, who says, "I am against this for religious reasons," and that is about the end of the argument. The newspapers present that as a balanced debate.
      We know that the truth is far from this stark position. A substantial body of opinion, consisting of scientists, medical and lay people, is against embryo research. This is not because these people do not care for the infertile or for the families that suffer from genetic disorders, but because

      113
      they hold the embryo to be something special and because they know that there are alternatives in the research on these problems.
      For the lay person yet to make up his mind on the topic, this distinction is crucial. People know that there is something special about the embryo. They may not have quite decided whether it is a blob of cells or a human being, and probably think it falls somewhere in between. They are not sure, but they know that the embryo is not like everything else.
      What guidance do such people have in forming an opinion about what research may be done with an embryo? If they knew more clearly that embryo research on genetic disease discarded embryos affected by genetic disorder, rather than curing them, and if they knew of the other work that has already been done on genetic disorder, I suspect that they would have a different view on whether it was right or wrong.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) mentioned the Gallup poll commissioned by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in which, he said, a majority of 58 per cent. agreed that there should be research to help genetic disorder. However, he did not speak about the second question in the poll, which was:
      "If the principal aim of the research into genetic diseases was not to find a cure or treatment but was to try and identify an afflicted embryo so that it could be discarded do you think human embryos should or should not be used for these types of experiments?"
      The majority was reversed in the answer to that question: it was against such experimentation.
      This distinction is crucial. We must establish that the embryo is special. We have heard tonight about alternative methods of genetic experimentation, for example, into cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome, using bone marrow donated by adults. If people knew more clearly that this work was going on, they might ask why we should go down the road of embryo research.
      That was the great fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) put before the House when he asked where the evidence was that embryo research had succeeded in producing any good work in the areas that we are discussing. He said that he had searched and that he could not find. If we have evidence of good work being done and other evidence of a Pandora's box, why should we continue down the road of research?
      There are serious questions to be answered that could open a Pandora's box. What do we do with the frozen embryos that now exist whose mother, or father, or perhaps both, are no longer with us? Who owns those embryos? Who will explain their origin at the appropriate time? What do we say when the scientists tell us, "With a bit more time we shall know what we are doing. Will you give us more than 14 days?"? What do we say to people such as Jacques Testart, one of the pioneers of French IVF treatment, who gave up his work because he was afraid of where it would lead?
      10.15 pm
      Those who share my view recognise that we are, in effect, closing down an avenue of research. Of course we are but, with hand on heart, we do not know where it might lead. We do know, however, where other work leads. We know what can happen and we are afraid of where embryo research might go.
      114
      The human mind has no limitations. There are many problems to which ultimately it will find the right answers, but it may take time to do so. One avenue may be shut, but another will open, and opportunities will be found. It will be far better to pursue the first avenue than to take the one of embryo research, for if we take it, we know where we go.
      Mr. John Hannam: This is a fascinating debate, in which the House has moved across a wide spectrum of moral, ethical, scientific and conscience issues. At each end of the debate, there are protagonists who feel so strongly that no amount of argument will sway their views. Like the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I do not believe that one side represents the moral issues and the other side the humanitarian or utilatarian ones.
      I am a practising Christian and, therefore, I believe in the sanctity of life. I do not accept that carefully controlled research using embryos for up to 14 days breaches my Christian belief, nor, I suggest, does the switching off of the life support machine of a brain-dead person.
      Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, I do not know exactly when life begins. Different aspects of being human occur at different times. En the treatment of infertility, which affects one couple in eight, the fertilisation of the egg by the sperm does not take place during the physical union of the man and woman. Pregnancy begins at the stage of implantation rather than fertilisation.
      In any event, the question of when life begins may be irrelevant to the couple concerned. They are choosing one of three options: starting a pregnancy with an implanted embryo which is not affected by the disease genes which they carry; the risk of the birth of an affected child and having prenatal diagnosis; and the option of terminating the pregnancy by abortion, which is something that we all wish to avoid.
      Pre-implantation diagnosis is not an experiment in itself. It is a diagnostic technique that is applied to embryos destined to be replaced in the uterus. The development of the procedures for this, however, requires limited research on embryos. Pre-implantation diagnosis is not a cure, not is it a treatment. It is the prevention of pregnancy with a diseased embryo, and an alternative to abortion of a diseased foetus following prenatal diagnosis.
      Legislation is necessary to regulate research on embryos, to protect the integrity of reproductive medicine and, in these days of legal actions, to protect scientists and clinicians. Legislation is required also to allay the fears of the public. When we do not understand technology that is meant to serve us, we begin to fear it and its possible side-effects. Some people who are prepared to agree to embryo research because of the obvious benefits in specific areas such as infertility and genetic disease become uneasy because of the fear that reproductive technology could take more sinister directions, such as genetic interference with the embryo.
      There would be no purpose in attempting genetically to cure embryos that are diagnosed as diseased because the diagnostic test itself would simultaneously identify the normal embryos without a defect. Characteristics influenced by many genes, such as intelligence, appearance or ability, cannot be identified or genetically engineered in the human embryo. In addition, the licensing authority and the ethical committees would ban genetic interference as well as selection of embryos on trivial grounds.

      115
      Having worked for many years in the area of disability and having had the moving experience of meeting and helping people with severe disabilities, I have been inspired in two ways—first, in undying admiration for their courage and determination and, secondly, in my determination to do all that I can to prevent as much handicap and illness as possible.
      Believing as I do that one way to prevent some of the fearful disablements is through embryo research and implantation, does not mean that in some way I am casting disrespect on disabled people or their carers, or doubting their love. We have heard movingly from Members of both Houses who have borne genetically handicapped babies, and in a recent lobby of Parliament several hundred parents and children came to Westminster Hall. No doubt can be cast on their motives or ours if tonight we agree to research.
      Britain is respected throughout the world for the sensible regulatory approach that it has adopted in these sensitive areas. We are also respected for the innovative and productive research that has resulted. The research is all licensed and open to scrutiny, and at present it is unrivalled in any other country. That system of well-tried surveillance and licensing has prevented any danger of the slippery slope syndrome in this country. The trappings of control may be irksome, but they are remarkably effective and have produced the best research system in the world.
      Slippery-slope arguments are good arguments for regulation and surveillance, but they are bad arguments for total prohibition. The best way to avoid the slippery slope is to erect the fence before the dangerous part, and that is what the Warnock recommendation does.
      The history of medicine is full of examples of reverence for the human body without loss of respect for persons. I have long campaigned for greater access to transplant surgery and, indeed, introduced my Corneal Tissue Act in 1986. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, for many years during our lifetime, transplant surgery was felt to be shocking, although now it has become a symbol of man using God's gift of the brain to preserve human life. I do not believe that medical scientists working in that area are in some way tampering with nature and that it is wrong to work towards helping childless couples or parents carrying genetic disorders that are certain to produce terribly handicapped children.
      Yesterday's interview in The Sunday Telegraph with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and his wife pointed clearly to the two standards of my speech: first, the love and protection given to their handicapped son, Stevie; and, secondly, the conviction that everything possible should be done to prevent the pain and suffering caused by such abnormalities. Lord Carter, who has had two severely handicapped children—one of whom died at the age of 19—and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), with a similar experience of such a tragedy, are both fighting for this research. It is their voices to which we should listen as we reach our conclusions on this matter.
      I wish to draw together the threads of my thoughts. First, I do not believe that in a Christian society we must accept the birth of handicapped children when many handicaps could be avoided. There will still be many
      116
      disabled people to love and to care for, but they will not have chosen to be born handicapped. Secondly, I believe that the 14-day limit is about right, because it relates to a well-known embryological event—the formation of the primitive streak, which corresponds to the end of the period during which the conceptus can form two or more embryos rather than just one. It is a landmark that is genuinely and immediately related to the emergence of the single individual from the conceptus. Thirdly, I do not think that this research can be successful using animals or by other means and I am not hopeful of other techniques for fertilisation.
      I hope that the House will share my belief that, as mainly healthy people blessed with healthy children, we should think long and hard before depriving others less fortunate than ourselves of the chance not only to have children but to have healthy, non-diseased children. Let us give full support to controlled research and vote against the amendment.
      Mr. John Bowis: Having sat through every minute of the debate, and unsuccessfully through Second Reading, I am sure that I have heard all the arguments. The fire and thunder of the early part of today's debate has given way to several thoughtful, persuasive and eloquent contributions from right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. Not least among them was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and on the same side of the argument, the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). We heard a significant speech for the other side of the argument from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). It has been a memorable debate.
      I shall vote for the amendment for several reasons—not least because I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who did not see much difference between an embryo and a blood corpuscle. I also found a new reason for voting as I shall after listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), with its frightening vision of science that should never be restrained and of a door that, once opened, ought never to be closed. If one looks down a slippery slope, to repeat a phrase that has been used often in the debate, sometimes a step backwards and further thought makes good common sense.
      I shall also vote for the amendment because of the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) concerning absolutism. I do not take an absolutist's position, but I hold some doubts. We must consider the balance of doubt between the interests of the potential for life and the interests of future lives. On balance, I vote for the possibility of a live human being an entity that needs protecting.
      There is no question but that all right hon. and hon. Members support research. We rejoice in the examples that we have heard of the results of successful research—but do we want it carried out on an entity that might become a human being? The word "perish" comes to mind so often when considering what is to be done with discarded embryos. If something can perish, it follows that it has life—and something that has the potential for life should be protected.
      What is the purpose of embryo research? Is it necessary and right? I want to discount once and for all the arguments relating to the pre-embryo, which have been

      117
      slightly off beam. It is a question not of the actual term that is used and whether it is in the dictionary, but of the need felt by some people to define a term to meet the case. It is a linguistic device to justify the definition of pre-embryo, meaning an embryo upon which research can be undertaken and which can be destroyed.
      The Bill implicitly acknowledges that there is something wrong with research. If that were not the case, it would not need to exist. It would not need to specify that research must be undertaken under certain conditions. That persuades me that behind the Bill is a feeling that there is something wrong about embryo research. The question is whether that something wrong is overridden by the benefits accruing from such research.
      Professor John Marshall, professor of clinical neurology at the university of London, who was a member of the Warnock committee, says:
      "because the entity has the potential to become a person, one affirms that it should not be interfered with, that nothing should be done that prevents it realising that potential".
      We are told that the purpose of embryo experiments is twofold; partly research and partly understanding or preventing handicaps. In the latter case, one is talking about the elimination of abnormal or diseased embryos.
      Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken of the dangers inherent in selecting the species in that way. I remind the House of the view held by the American geneticist Motulsky that aborting an abnormal foetus would not provide the answer to genetic disease. If one killed off every embryo, foetus and child born with cystic fibrosis, because of genetic mutation it would still take 1,250 years to halve the gene frequency and in the case of sickle cell anaemia it would take 750 years. In some cases it would take thousands of years to halve the frequency of a disease.
      10.30 pm
      Understandably, people regret the 10 to 15 years that it may take to find true therapy for such diseases. It is tragic, but that time delay is as nothing compared to 1,250 years for a technique that is destructive.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) referred to Lord Walton, but in the other place he accepted Professor Lejeune's view that the treatment of genetic diseases cannot be achieved by embryo research.
      The other body that has been flooding us with information, the Royal Society of Medicine, posed this
      118
      question: has human embryological research prevented any genetic diseases? It came up with the answer no. Its objective is the early identification of conceptuses carrying genetic disorders. Therefore, it is not research that will lead to prevention of such diseases, which we all should like to see. However, there are alternatives through gene therapy, and molecular biology, which do not involve embryo research.
      Consider the recent achievements throughout the world—for example, the achievements in Oxford on muscular dystrophy, in Cambridge Massachusetts, on auto immune disease, the National Institute of Medical Research's achievements on sickle cell anaemia and the achievements at Trinity college, Dublin on retinitis pigmentosa. All those achievements were made and all that research has benefited mankind without the need for embryo research. I have come to the conclusion that embryo research is not right, it is not necessary, and in some cases it can be dangerous.
      Finally, as a text to close my contribution, I take the Helsinki declaration, which was drawn up by the World Medical Association and signed by the British Medical Association. It states:
      "the interests of science and society must never prevail over the interests of the individual."
      I believe that most hon. Members would agree with that. Where we are divided is over when the individual comes into being. The balance of doubt, the question mark, and the hope are on the side of that small embryo—a small piece of humanity that has life ahead of it. I shall vote in favour of the amendment and in favour of the embryo and its future.
      Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Sir Paul. I have sat through the whole of the debate, as have many other hon. Members. I asked to be called several days ago and I have not been called, which accords with the Army principle that, if one knows something about a subject, one will not be asked to do it. Speaking as possibly the only practising biologist in the House and also as a genetic scientist, I have never heard so many confused arguments attributed to scientists as in this debate.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I am sorry that the hon. Lady and a number of other hon. Members were disappointed. Alas, time has run out and there is nothing that the Chair can do about it.
      Ms. Harman: Much of tonight's debate has focused on the moral questions raised by embryo research. The Secretary of State gave the House a helpful formulation when he said in his opening speech that we have to balance two moral obligations—the obligation to respect life and the obligation to alleviate suffering. A regulated legal framework to allow embryo research to continue meets both those moral obligations. The moral and scientific case for research is overwhelming.
      Many hon. Members have asked when life begins. The beginning of life is a process with many milestones of development. Fertilisation is followed by the multiplication of cells. Fourteen days after fertilisation, most cells go to form the placenta and some form the embryo. I do not believe that the embryo before 14 days, when those cells are separating and before the appearance of what is called the primitive streak, is sufficient of an individual to deny us the chance of research. The value that we should place on that stage of embryonic development should not preclude research.
      That research has already produced great benefits for those who suffer infertility or have had a child suffering from a genetic disorder. Research promises further benefits to improve the treatment of infertility, to understand the causes of miscarriages and to develop a contraceptive vaccine.
      Infertility is a major problem. It is a devastating blow for a woman who wants a child to discover that she cannot have a baby. No matter how happy one's marriage or how fulfilling one's job, the inability to have a baby casts a blight over the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. It is estimated that at least one in eight couples have fertility problems. We all know people who are trying unsuccessfully for a baby. Sadly, that is still not talked about openly and there is still a sense of embarrassment and stigma about the subject.
      Embryo research can help childless couples in three ways: through IVF—the so-called test-tube baby treatment; through understanding the causes of infertility among the 40,000 couples where the reasons remain a mystery, and through the understanding of, and chance to treat, the misery of repeated miscarriage.
      Embryo research will also help in the search for a contraceptive vaccine. It makes me smile when I hear contraception talked about in this House as though it is entirely a Third-world issue. The argument is that we need a contraceptive vaccine because of the population problems in the Third world. I remind hon. Members that there are women in this country as well. The battle for a safe, effective, convenient form of contraception is still far from won. A safe contraceptive vaccine would benefit women in the Third world, but it would also benefit women in this country, as the 200,000 unplanned and regretted pregnancies in this country every year testify.
      Most of all, the case for continued embryo research is made by families with a child who has died an agonising death from a genetic defect. Some of the stories of those children are almost too painful to recount. Let us consider the case of David Gower who is now six years old. His mother told his story on "Newsnight" last Friday, as some hon. Members may be aware. Until about 18 months ago David appeared to be a perfectly normal boy, but he has muscular dystrophy. Soon he will not be able to sit up, crawl or feed himself. Eventually he will not be able to draw breath and it is thought that he will die before he is 12. His mother, Sue Gower, said:
      120
      "People who are not in this position know nothing of the traumas, nothing of the screaming child that we have because he is frustrated because he cannot do things and the pain he suffers. To hear your child lie there with tears rolling down his face, saying 'Mummy make it better', is agonising because there is nothing I can do. I have to sit and watch him die and that is why I would not want to put another child through this agony."
      Parents like Sue Gower face an agonising choice. They can have another child and risk the same dreadful suffering, they can remain childless or they can become pregnant and face the difficult decision of an abortion if the foetus is discovered to carry the same defect. As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who has faced that problem, said, it is a terrible thing to have to decide whether to abort a much-wanted pregnancy.
      Embryo research through the development of pre-implantation diagnosis offers mothers like Sue the chance to have a healthy child. Beneath the speeches of those who have argued against continuing embryo research is an underestimate of the value of medical research—somehow the suspicion of medical science. We have heard much talk about Nazi Germany and Dr. Mengele.
      We have been warned not to be starry-eyed about science. Let me warn the House not to be starry-eyed about nature. Nature gave us death by smallpox and medical research gave us vaccination. Nature gave us disability inflicted by polio and medical research gave us immunisation that a child can take on a cube of sugar. Nature gave us kidney failure and medical research has given people the chance of a new life through transplant. I well remember when the transplant programme was beginning 20 years ago. People said, "Hang on a minute. Is this really natural? Is it ethical to take an organ from someone's body to give someone else a chance of life?" Now, with the enormous success of the transplant programme, we recognise that it has been one of the greatest advances of medical science in the past quarter of a century.
      Mr. Cormack: I am sure that the hon. Lady does not mean to be unfair, but she should not suggest that those who have misgivings about embryo research are against research per se—we are not. However, we believe that to destroy life in the interests of life is in itself wrong. That is why we are disturbed about it.
      Ms. Harman: I hope that, if the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) seriously believes in medical science and the benefits that it can offer, he will vote with me to allow, under strict regulation, embryo research to continue.
      Nature can be hideously and monstrously cruel. It is nature, through the genetic disorder of epidermolysis bullosa, that takes what appears to be a perfectly healthy baby and strips its skin off and leaves it to die in agony. It is nature, through muscular dystrophy, that takes an otherwise healthy young boy and, as other teenagers taste their freedom, confines him to a wheelchair. As his friends grow towards adulthood, he disintegrates and dies. Medical research on pre-embryos offers families with a genetic disorder the chance of a healthy child.
      Competing scientific claims have surfaced in the debate. Hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who would ban further research,

      121
      argue, "We could still have IVF even without further research." But we can do IVF only because of past research. It is illogical to ban the research but allow the treatment that that research has created. It has been argued that we can somehow improve the success rate without further IVF research. The argument is that the amount of experience that a clinic has, rather than research, determines the success rate. Of course the more we carry out a technique the better we get at it, and therefore the higher the success rate. But that gives us only marginal improvements. The real breakthroughs to substantial improvements in the success rate will come only with research.
      It has been argued that we can carry on with pre-implantation diagnosis without further pre-embryo research, but those involved in pre-implementation diagnosis do not believe that that is true. We must hear what they say. It has been argued that we can use animals to carry out research, but some aspects of development are different in human and animal embryology. As the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) rightly pointed out, the statutory licensing authority will not allow research on embryos if it could be done on animals instead. It has been argued that scientific opinion is divided on whether pre-embryo research should continue and that there is equal weight of scientific opinion on each side. That is not a fair representation of the case.
      The Medical Research Council has taken the unusual step of a strong policy statement backing early embryo research. The Royal Society cavassed its 2,000 fellows, and doubts were expressed by only three. If there is a division of opinion, it is between those who are currently involved in medical research and know its benefits and possibilities and those who are not involved in medical research and do not know its benefits and possibilities.
      Some have argued that pre-implantation diagnosis undervalues the life of those with genetic disorders. It is an affront to argue that, not least to parents in organisations such as Mencap, and to imply that because they support embryo research they do not care about people with handicaps. Mencap is an organisation consisting largely of parents of mentally handicapped children. They support the continuation of embryo research because they know and care. It is not the case that parents in such organisations do not know the difference between screening and cure—the so-called cruel misrepresentation that somehow a cure will be offered. Any parents who have watched a child die of a genetic disorder have the best reason in the world to be absolutely expert about the possibilities that medical science will be able to offer them in future.
      10.45 pm
      No one is saying that anyone would be forced to undergo pre-implantation diagnosis. We are saying only that those who want it should have the choice and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made clear, embryo research should be allowed to continue within a carefully laid down legal framework. There should be no animal experimentation or cloning, no research outside narrowly defined purposes, no research beyond 14 days and no ability within the law to choose the sex of a child for a peerage or any other reason. We are not talking about a free-for-all.
      People who have benefited from embryo research, such as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), should
      122
      not vote to deny others the joy that he finds in his child. Those of us who have not suffered infertility or faced the misery of miscarriage and who are blessed with healthy children are fortunate. But thousands of other people are not so fortunate and we should heed the suffering of infertile couples and listen with humility to parents who have watched a child die. To allow them hope, I hope that the House will join me in voting for embryo research.
      The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The House has today had a significant debate on a matter of importance to many people in the country. The debate marks the culmination of the long period of public discussion of the central issue posed by the Warnock committee in its report published in 1984: should research involving human embryos be permitted under strict statutory controls, or should such research be prohibited?
      Whichever side individual Members take on the issue, all should agree that Parliament has done justice to the deeply held and very sincere views of our constituents. Twenty-six right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in the debate, and I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and others have been here throughout and have not had the opportunity to speak.
      It is to the credit of the House that the subject has been treated with the care, attention and solemnity which the issue deserves. Such occasions see the House of Commons working at its best. As the representatives of the people, we are meeting to decide matters of great consequence.
      There are issues of ethical, legal and social as well as scientific interest and importance in the embryo research question. It concerns the beginnings of life itself. We should have failed if we had not approached them with the utmost seriousness. There have been arguments for and against research. They were put at some length and with eloquence by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his introductory speech.
      The amendments which we have been debating tonight were tabled by the Government in the interests of securing orderly debate and emphasising the even-handedness with which we are committed to dealing with the arguments for and against the central proposition.
      The Government have fulfilled their central undertaking in the White Paper, that Parliament would be given the opportunity to vote on alternative clauses dealing with the matter. To meet that commitment fully, we introduced a drafting innovation when the Bill was introduced in another place. Clause 11 was constructed with two mutually inclusive provisions: one providing that the new authority to be set up under the Bill should be able to issue licences for treatment, storage and research, and the other that research should be prohibited. The House now has the opportunity to prohibit or to permit, under strict control, research on human embryos.
      The arguments against research have been put eloquently by many hon. Members whose views are worthy of the deepest respect. They are essentially that, whatever the benefits of research, it is repugnant to contemplate allowing the use and destruction of the human embryo in the cause of research. That is because, in their view, the embryo demands the protection of the law because of its status as a human being. For them, that is an unshakeable principle and a matter of the strongest conviction. Some have also argued that the same ends can be achieved by other means—for example, through using animals—and that, were research to be permitted, even

      123
      under the strict controls contemplated in the Bill, there is no guarantee that in the future those who wish to undertake such research would not seek to extend the framework to which Parliament might have agreed.
      Perhaps the most fundamental argument about research is on the status of the human embryo. We have heard many speeches today addressing that complex problem in great detail. Those who oppose research believe that life starts at the moment of conception, when the sperm fuses with the egg. From that point, they argue, it becomes an individual human being deserving of the rights and protection of a human being at any stage in its development, including childhood and even adulthood.
      The case of those who support embryo research was put strongly by the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Barking (Ms. Richardson). They believe that an embryo should be properly protected and respected but that, up to 14 days, it is a set of undifferentiated cells, only a few of which will go on to form the embryo, and that it accrues fuller rights as it develops until it is born as a baby, when there is no divergence of views about its status.
      It might be helpful if I summarised briefly the principal purposes for which, if Parliament agrees, the new authority will be permitted to license research. They are set out clearly in schedule 2, and they are highly specific. Projects would be licensed only for those particular purposes, and the licences would be time-limited. Those purposes would be to promote advances in the treatment of infertility, to increase knowledge about the causes of congenital disease, to develop more effective techniques of contraception, to increase knowledge about the causes of miscarriage and to develop methods of detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation.
      Many hon. Members have spoken on the basis of personal experience. Others have spoken on the basis of detailed scientific knowledge on various aspects of the matter. We have had some excellent speeches. I hesitate to pick out particular examples but I should like to mention the passion of my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, who spoke strongly; the sincerity of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and for Derbyshire South (Mrs. Currie) and of the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), all of whom spoke with experience, and whose voices we have heard previously on this matter.
      Similarly, I must mention the clarity of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the candour of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) has frequently made powerful speeches on scientific subjects. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has a special position working with the Medical Research Council. I must also mention the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) asked what good had come out of embryo research in the past four years. I have already referred to some of the specific purposes for which research would be licensed by the new authority. The arguments for such research have been put lucidly and at length by many hon. Members. They include the importance of tackling
      124
      infertility, studying miscarriage, dealing with the estimated 4,000 hereditary diseases and enabling parents to produce children free from handicap. The new developments at the Hammersmith hospital have been referred to. I visited the Rosie maternity hospital in Cambridge to talk with the patients and practitioners about the value of the work that was being undertaken.
      Several hon. Member raised detailed points. I fear that I shall not have the time to deal with all of them on this occasion, but I shall write to those whose points I do not manage to address now.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) talked about the incidence of abnormal births following IVF. I am advised that IVF does not result in a greater incidence of abnormal births. However, the incidence of multiple pregnancy is higher following certain infertility treatments. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury asked how many embryos had been destroyed during research. That is not information that I can give him. Indeed, our information about what happens to fertilised embryos in nature is not altogether thorough. He will know that a great number are lost naturally. Others referred to the danger to women who donate eggs from super-ovulatory drugs, and it is a matter of careful supervision.
      The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) was concerned about ensuring that embryos were not created unnecessarily by doctors. Under the Bill, the statutory licensing authority will be able to make licences subject to specific conditions. That is set out in schedule 2, which deals with the treatment licences. The authority will be able to ensure that embryos are not created unnecessarily. It will apply to embryos created for the treatment of patients and, if Parliament so decides, to cases where the woman wishes to donate eggs for the creation of embryos which can be used for research.
      Several right hon. and hon. Members spoke about the importance of the controls and the necessity for ensuring that these strict controls are properly in place. The Government have every confidence in the ability of the new authority to impose strict controls and the Bill provides extensive powers for the approval, revocation, variation and suspension of licences. A primary task of the new authority will be to make sure that there is an effective system in place and that it enjoys public confidence.
      There are further grounds for reassuring hon. Members. There is the element of self-policing which operates in any area of scientific endeavour. Today we have had a great deal of discussion about the recent publication of works being undertaken by scientists. Once published, any results are open to scrutiny by scientists and others who work in the field. The scientific community has played and will continue to play an important part in ensuring that results are published.
      We also have the five years' experience of the voluntary system. This is the result of the work done by the voluntary licensing authority under the vigilant eye of its chairman, Dame Mary Donaldson. We are aware of no embryo research being carried out in this country without its prior approval. With the additional powers vested in the authority under the Bill, we can undoubtedly be confident that such work will be properly supervised and regulated.
      Lest there be any doubt, I should repeat that the role of my right hon. and learned Friend and me in speaking for the Government tonight has been to assist the House in reaching a conclusion on this great matter and to help

      125
      provide factual information and a resume of the arguments. It has been our intention to approach this, so far as possible, in a dispassionate and objective fashion.
      My view as the Member for Surrey, South-West will be registered in the Division Lobby later. I shall vote against the amendment. I have never made any secret of my support for the principle of embryo research, subject to strict statutory controls. That is where I stand as a Member of the House. I have done my best to ensure that this view, which I have reached after careful consideration, has not influenced me in speaking on these matters as a member of the Government, whose even-handedness and neutrality should not be in question.
      As the hour for decision on this vital matter approaches, I should like to thank all those who have spoken in tonight's debate for the quality of their contributions, for the thoughtful and considered way in which they have put across their arguments and for the patent sincerity with which they have expressed their views. Many have referred to the strength of views among our constituents on these complex and important problems. It is rare that this House has to address an issue of such great moral significance. Tonight's debate has done that issue full justice. It has been the culmination of several years' intensive public debate and discussion. History will view that time as justified in enabling all those concerned with such matters to develop fully their arguments.
      When the House delivers its vote tonight, I believe that it will have taken its decision in a proper fashion—the importance of the issues that we have addressed demands that. Tonight, hon. Members will vote according to their consciences on the basis of their judgment with care and consideration having studied the debate and considered all the arguments. Whatever the outcome, we shall have brought to a conclusion a significant debate that transcends the normal exchanges of party politics.
      In conclusion, I can do no better than remind the House of the words of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor:
      "this is a matter of moral judgment in the light of the factual situation … I do not believe it is right to take a moral judgment without seeking to appreciate the facts, but once the facts are appreciated, the matter is one, I believe, entirely for moral judgment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 1990; Vol. 515, c. 987.]
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (SirPaul Dean): I am now required to put the Question, and to avoid any confusion I remind the Committee that the first question to be decided is amendment No. 1.
      It being Eleven o'clock, The SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [2 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 364.

      Division No. 166]

      [11 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkinson, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Alton, David

      Battle, John

      Amess, David

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Amos, Alan

      Beggs, Roy

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Beith, A. J.

      Ashby, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bendall, Vivian

      Atkins, Robert

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      126

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Kilfedder, James

      Biften, Rt Hon John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Bowis, John

      Latham, Michael

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Brazier, Julian

      Lightbown, David

      Bright, Graham

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Buckley, George J.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Lord, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Burt, Alistair

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Butcher, John

      McCrea, Rev William

      Canavan, Dennis

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cash, William

      McFall, John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Chope, Christopher

      McGrady, Eddie

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

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Conway, Derek

      Mans, Keith

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Marlow, Tony

      Cormack, Patrick

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cryer, Bob

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Day, Stephen

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Devlin, Tim

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Mills, Iain

      Dicks, Terry

      Moate, Roger

      Dixon, Don

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Douglas, Dick

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Dover, Den

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dunn, Bob

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Evennett, David

      Mudd, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Murphy, Paul

      Faulds, Andrew

      Neubert, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fearn, Ronald

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      O'Brien, William

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Parry, Robert

      Freeman, Roger

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      French, Douglas

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Fry, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Galloway, George

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Gow, Ian

      Price, Sir David

      Graham, Thomas

      Redwood, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Reid, Dr John

      Gregory, Conal

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Ground, Patrick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grylls, Michael

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hague, William

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Sillars, Jim

      Harris, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hay hoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Speller, Tony

      Hayward, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hill, James

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Sumberg, David

      Holt, Richard

      Summerson, Hugo

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

      Hume, John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Hunter, Andrew

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Janman, Tim

      Thorne, Neil

      Jessel, Toby

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Tracey, Richard

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Trippier, David

      127

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Watts, John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Vaz, Keith

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Walden, George

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mr. W. Benyon and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cran, James

      Allen, Graham

      Crowther, Stan

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Darling, Alistair

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Baldry, Tony

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dewar, Donald

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Dobson, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Durant, Tony

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dykes, Hugh

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

      Eadie, Alexander

      Blair, Tony

      Eastham, Ken

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Blunkett, David

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Boateng, Paul

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Farr, Sir John

      Boswell, Tim

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bottomley, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Flannery, Martin

      Boyes, Roland

      Flynn, Paul

      Bradley, Keith

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Foster, Derek

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

      Foulkes, George

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Fraser, John

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gale, Roger

      Buchan, Norman

      Gardiner, George

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gill, Christopher

      Butler, Chris

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Butterfill, John

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Caborn, Richard

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Callaghan, Jim

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Cartwright, John

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Chapman, Sydney

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Grist, Ian

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clay, Bob

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Clelland, David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Cohen, Harry

      Hannam, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Hardy, Peter

      Colvin, Michael

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

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Haynes, Frank

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Corbett, Robin

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Henderson, Doug

      Cox, Tom

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      128

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meale, Alan

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Mellor, David

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Michael, Alun

      Home Robertson, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

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

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Howells, Geraint

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hoyle, Doug

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Ingram, Adam

      Moss, Malcolm

      Irvine, Michael

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Jack, Michael

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Robert

      Neale, Gerrard

      Janner, Greville

      Needham, Richard

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Nellist, Dave

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Kennedy, Charles

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Key, Robert

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Page, Richard

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Paice, James

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Knapman, Roger

      Patchett, Terry

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Knox, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Lambie, David

      Pike, Peter L.

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Lang, Ian

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Prescott, John

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Leighton, Ron

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Radice, Giles

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Rattan, Keith

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Lewis, Terry

      Rathbone, Tim

      Litherland, Robert

      Redmond, Martin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Livsey, Richard

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Richardson, Jo

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Riddick, Graham

      McAllion, John

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      McCartney, Ian

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      McCrindle, Robert

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Rogers, Allan

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Rooker, Jeff

      McKelvey, William

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Maclean, David

      Rost, Peter

      McLeish, Henry

      Rowe, Andrew

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Ruddock, Joan

      McWilliam, John

      Ryder, Richard

      Madden, Max

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Madel, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Maples, John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Marek, Dr John

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Marland, Paul

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Martlew, Eric

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mates, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Short, Clare

      Maxton, John

      Sims, Roger

      129

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

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

      Waller, Gary

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

      Walley, Joan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Ward, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Soley, Clive

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wells, Bowen

      Squire, Robin

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Whitney, Ray

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stern, Michael

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wilkinson, John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Stott, Roger

      Wilshire, David

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wilson, Brian

      Strang, Gavin

      Winnick, David

      Straw, Jack

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Tellers for the Noes

      Tredinnick, David

      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mr. James Couchman.

      Trotter, Neville

      Turner, Dennis

      Viggers, Peter

      Amendment accordingly negatived.
      The SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 362, Noes 189.

      Division No. 167]

      [11.15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Buchan, Norman

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Butler, Chris

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Butterfill, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Caborn, Richard

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Barron, Kevin

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Carrington, Matthew

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

      Cartwright, John

      Blair, Tony

      Chapman, Sydney

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Blunkett, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Boateng, Paul

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clay, Bob

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clelland, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bottomley, Peter

      Cohen, Harry

      Bottom Iey, Mrs Virginia

      Coleman, Donald

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Colvin, Michael

      Boyes, Roland

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bradley, Keith

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

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

      Corbett, Robin

      130

      Corbyn, Jeremy

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

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Cox, Tom

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Cran, James

      Howells, Geraint

      Crowther, Stan

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Darling, Alistair

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

      Ingram, Adam

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Irvine, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jack, Michael

      Dewar, Donald

      Jackson, Robert

      Dobson, Frank

      Janner, Greville

      Doran, Frank

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Durant, Tony

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Eastham, Ken

      Kennedy, Charles

      Eggar, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Emery, Sir Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Farr, Sir John

      Knapman, Roger

      Fatchett, Derek

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Knox, David

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

      Lambie, David

      Flannery, Martin

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Flynn, Paul

      Lang, Ian

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Forman, Nigel

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Foster, Derek

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Foulkes, George

      Leighton, Ron

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fraser, John

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Gale, Roger

      Lewis, Terry

      Gardiner, George

      Litherland, Robert

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gill, Christopher

      Livsey, Richard

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McAllion, John

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      McCartney, Ian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McCrindle, Robert

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      McKelvey, William

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Maclean, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McLeish, Henry

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Grist, Ian

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Grocott, Bruce

      McWilliam, John

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Madden, Max

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Madel, David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hannam, John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Hardy, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

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

      Maples, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Marek, Dr John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Marland, Paul

      Haynes, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Martlew, Eric

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Mates, Michael

      Henderson, Doug

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Maxton, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meale, Alan

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Mellor, David

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Michael, Alun

      Home Robertson, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      131

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morley, Elliot

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Squire, Robin

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Steen, Anthony

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Stern, Michael

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stevens, Lewis

      Needham, Richard

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Nellist, Dave

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stott, Roger

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Strang, Gavin

      Norris, Steve

      Straw, Jack

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Patchett, Terry

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thurnham, Peter

      Pike, Peter L.

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Tredinnick, David

      Prescott, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dennis

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Viggers, Peter

      Radice, Giles

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Raffan, Keith

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Redmond, Martin

      Walley, Joan

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Ward, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Richardson, Jo

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Riddick, Graham

      Wells, Bowen

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Whitney, Ray

      Rogers, Allan

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wilkinson, John

      Rowe, Andrew

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wilshire, David

      Ryder, Richard

      Wilson, Brian

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Winnick, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Worthington, Tony

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Yeo, Tim

      Sheerman, Barry

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Short, Clare

      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mr. James Couchman.

      Sims, Roger

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Ashby, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Alton, David

      Atkinson, David

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amos, Alan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Battle, John

      132

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Janman, Tim

      Beggs, Roy

      Jessel, Toby

      Beith, A. J.

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Bell, Stuart

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kilfedder, James

      Bermingham, Gerald

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Latham, Michael

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Bowis, John

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Lightbown, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Lilley, Peter

      Brazier, Julian

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Bright, Graham

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Buckley, George J.

      Lord, Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Burns, Simon

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Burt, Alistair

      McCrea, Rev William

      Butcher, John

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Canavan, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Cash, William

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      McGrady, Eddie

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

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Conway, Derek

      Mans, Keith

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Marlow, Tony

      Cormack, Patrick

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Day, Stephen

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Devlin, Tim

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Mills, Iain

      Dicks, Terry

      Moate, Roger

      Dixon, Don

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Douglas, Dick

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Dover, Den

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dunn, Bob

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Evennett, David

      Mudd, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Murphy, Paul

      Faulds, Andrew

      Neubert, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fearn, Ronald

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      O'Brien, William

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Parry, Robert

      Freeman, Roger

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      French, Douglas

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Fry, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Galloway, George

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Price, Sir David

      Gow, Ian

      Redwood, John

      Graham, Thomas

      Reid, Dr John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Robertson, George

      Gregory, Conal

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Ground, Patrick

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hague, William

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Sillars, Jim

      Harris, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Speller, Tony

      Hayward, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hill, James

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Sumberg, David

      Holt, Richard

      Summerson, Hugo

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Hume, John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Thorne, Neil

      133

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Warren, Kenneth

      Tracey, Richard

      Watts, John

      Trippier, David

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Vaz, Keith

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Walden, George

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Mr. A. E. P. Duffy and Mr. W. Benyon.

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      The SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
      Committee again tomorrow.

  Langley Estate, Manchester
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Jim Callaghan: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister and the House to the importance of the subject that I am raising on the Adjournment tonight. I wish also to draw attention to the Manchester Evening News of Wednesday 7 February. It is a large regional newspaper, and its Lobby correspondent had written an article under the front-page headline:
  "1,000 homes are lying empty.
  The scandal of the ghost estate."
  Such was the importance of the subject that the newspaper carried a second page showing the list of shame, with photographs of residents, and stating that £18 million was needed to make just one estate fit to live in. I thank Mr. Ian Craig for his presentation of the article. He told me that the Manchester Evening News has had its biggest postbag in years on that subject because so many people are angry about 1,000 houses lying empty.
  In February it was with great anger, bitterness and frustration that councillors for the Manchester overspill estate, the Langley estate in my constituency—Peter Brown, Tony Heaford, Les Wosley, Kevin Hunt and Peter Bury—expressed to me their deep concern that Manchester's estate action bid for £8 million for renovating the Langley estate had been rejected by the Government. I asked the councillors to contain their anger and frustration until I had discovered from the Manchester housing authority the reasons why the bid had been rejected. I praise the patience of the Langley councillors. On receipt of an eventual communication from the housing authority, I applied to Mr. Speaker for an Adjournment debate.
  I can well understand the councillors' frustration and anger, and I share their emotions. They are angry and frustrated because, although they are elected by the good people of Langley, they are powerless to represent them where it most matters—on the housing committee in Manchester that is responsible for the management of the overspill estate. When elected, the councillors of Langley represent their electorate in Rochdale borough council's chamber, not in Manchester. That system is most undemocratic. I said so 15 years ago, on 9 July 1975, on the Floor of the House, when I first raised the subject of Langley overspill estate. I have a copy of that debate to give to the Minister at the end of this debate.
  I did not believe in 1975, and do not believe now, that the social, economic and environmental problems confronting Langley can be solved as long as it remains in the ownership of Manchester city council, yet is located in the borough of Rochdale.
  As a consequence of that arrangement, Langley's tenants and councillors have no say or input in the running of the estate. As the tenants formerly paid their rents to Manchester, and their rates to Rochdale, an important principle is at stake. An analogy is the American war of independence, which was fought on the slogan, "No taxation without representation." We lost that battle, but the principle holds good. Langley is still paying its taxes to Manchester, but receives no representation. We never seem to learn from our mistakes.

  135
  After I raised the matter 15 years ago, I was immediately invited by Manchester city council officials to a meeting, where they asked me not to press the issue because Manchester was unable then to consider any change in the ownership of its overspill estates. They explained that Manchester city council had more than 30,000 applicants on its waiting list and would be unable to continue its slum clearance programme if its overspill estates were lost.
  I accepted the merits of that argument, albeit with some reluctance. Fifteen years on, that case can now be met. I believe—as do the appointed and elected Rochdale representatives with whom I have discussed the matter—that the ownership of Langley estate should now be considered by the Government, the two local authorities involved and, above all, by the tenants.
  However, apart from the question of principle, my immediate concern is that any such debate should not get in the way of processing a new estate action bid. The representatives of both local authorities and the tenants agree that there is an urgent need for money, for several reasons.
  Langley was built 40 years ago as Manchester's largest overspill estate to accommodate 25,000 people displaced by slum clearance. The estate now comprises 4,652 properties, of which 438 have been sold. Sixty-three per cent. of the stock is two to four-bedroomed housing and cottage flats. Thirty per cent. is maisonettes and flats. There are three tower blocks, 42 walk-up flats, and one double-decker maisonette block.
  The overriding problem is damp, fungus and condensation because 2,500 properties have solid concrete floors without damp-proof membranes. Almost 1,000 properties are bricked and boarded up which, as the Manchester Evening News comments, is disgraceful.
  Those 1,000 boarded-up properties are pepper-potted throughout the estate and are not in one particular location. As each day passes, the estate resembles Beirut more and more. Because of the lack of damp-proof membranes and the area's high water table, more properties are showing signs of serious damp and are unfit for human habitation. Two thousand tenants have initiated litigation in an attempt to secure transfers and compensation.
  I have been in many of the homes and I have seen that wallpaper can not be put on the walls. The moment it is put up it falls off because of the damp. I have seen the green mould in people's homes. It is a dreadful smelling green mould which gets on the clothes in the wardrobes and is obviously a danger to health.
  As properties become empty they cannot be re-let without major capital works to remedy the dampness. At present there are almost 1,000 empty properties on the estate—almost 25 per cent.—and the number is rising. To be fair to Manchester council, when the problem was identified it developed a rolling programme to replace the floors and modernise the properties. In 1986–87 the council allocated £3·5 million to that work. In 1987–88 it allocated £5·4 million and 577 properties were modernised between 1986 and 1988. Given its financial straits, Manchester has been able to allocate only £300,000 to the damp floor programme this year—a meagre sum, but it is not the council's fault.
  136
  As capital resource constraints are exercised, damp properties will continue to exceed the rate at which they can be repaired and the estate will fall into further decline.
  Against the background of diminishing resoures, Manchester recognises that it cannot solve Langley's problems alone. The solution is in the hands of the Government. The problem can be solved only if substantial additional resources can be targeted to the estate.
  So far I have only given statistics. But those statistics represent people and most of the tenants on the estate are suffering from the effects of living in dreadful property. I said in my first debate on the subject in the House:
  "Thus the estate is seen as a transit camp unrelated to its neighbouring communities and remote from the main authority in Manchester. The problems of Langley thus become more intense as the years go by."—[Official Report, 9 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 706.]
  I said that then and I agree with it now.
  Any examination of the referrals to the social services department in the borough of Middleton show that 50 per cent. come from Langley. I could continue with such statistics. I also have here a list of the social problems on the estate, given to me by a head teacher in a school on the estate 15 years ago. I could not let the press see it then and I do not want the press to see it now, so dreadful are the social conditions on the estate. But I shall certainly let the Minister have a copy if he is interested.
  Langley rates as one of the most deprived areas in the country, according to Professor Peter Townsend's survey, "Inner City Deprivation and Premature Deaths". Professor Townsend of Bristol university recorded that 69 per cent. of those living on the estate do not own a car, 91 per cent. do not own their own homes, there is overcrowding in II per cent. of the homes and the estate has an appalling long-term unemployment rate of 40 per cent.
  Poverty can affect expectation of life and there is plenty of poverty on Langley. As an example, Langley west ward has 65 deaths above the national average and the central ward has 48 deaths above the national average. From the evidence of my casework I have no doubt whatsover that the damp, fungus, condensation and lack of adequate heating all contribute to early deaths from deprivation. It is small wonder that 2,000 tenants have sought litigation to obtain transfers from some of those houses of premature death.
  Langley has become a ghost town—a dream turned into a nightmare with devastating and desperate problems. Langley is becoming a lost cause, a vandalised ghetto of sickness and despair. The more the estate is run down and the houses left empty at the mercy of the vandals the less families want them because they are not fit for human habitation.
  Now there is next to no demand for those houses from people on either the long housing waiting list in Manchester or the long waiting list in Rochdale. That reflects the poor quality of the housing stock in Langley. Accordingly, I asked the Minister to reconsider his decision and accept Manchester's bid for funding. Working on the principle that a stitch in time saves nine, would not it make economic sense to repair the immediate defects of the properties on the estate rather than, in the long run, have to knock down the estate and rebuild it? Does it really make economic sense to have 1,000 houses

  137
  bricked and boarded up while there are thousands of people on the housing waiting lists in the Manchester and Rochdale areas?
  I cannot blame Manchester council, because I have been informed that it submitted 13 bids for estate action money last year, one of which was for Langley. However, I was told that although the Government were very interested in the large Langley bid, they could not find the money this year because it would use up too large an amount of the region's allocation of estate action money. Again, I was told that the Government may be interested in a resubmitted bill for funding in 1991–92 and that optimism was expressed about its chances of success. I hope that that is the case.
  The bill last year was for £8·5 million to repair and modernise Langley houses because they are impossible to live in. Hence the necessity for a large injection of funds in addition to normal housing investment programme money. I have also been reliably informed that Manchester city council and Rochdale council are co-operating to make the bid for estate action money in 1991–92 as good as possible. They are also co-operating to alleviate any of the conditions on the estate that can be dealt with in advance of estate action money being available. It is against that background of reducing resources that Manchester council recognises that it cannot solve Langley's problems alone.
  On 8 September 1989, in item 18 of the housing committee report, the then acting director of housing in Manchester said:
  "Manchester cannot afford to repair the void properties as well as finding extra money to repair and improve the still tenanted potentially damp properties."
  A solution to those problems will be possible only if substantial additional resources can be targeted to the Langley estate.
  In his order of priorities for estate action money, can the Minister tell us whether any estate in the United Kingdom is in a worse state than Langley? Does any other estate in the United Kingdom have 1,000 households bricked and boarded up? Langley has become such a national scandal that I sincerely invite the Minister to visit the estate with me to see at first hand the problems that I have outlined. If he accepts my invitation, I am sure that he will, as a matter of great urgency, change his mind about the rejection of the estate action bid.
  11.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): At the outset I must state that I sympathise enormously with the problems that people on the Langley estate have to put up with. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) has campaigned for a long time on their behalf and he has had tremendous difficulties, particularly with Manchester city council. I saw the Manchester Evening News of 7 February to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in which an article states:
  "Rochdale council's Labour leader Richard Farnell today bitterly attacked his party colleagues in Manchester over the plight of the Langley estate.
  He accused the city council leadership of indulging in 'gesture politics' and branded the city an absentee landlord."
  Mr. Farnell said that the city council had
  "failed to make bids for Government cash under its estate action programme because schemes would have private sector links."
  138
  He said:
  "Langley residents have had an extremely raw deal from Manchester."
  Mr. Callaghan indicated assent.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is nodding.
  Mr. Farnell has summed up the history of the problem, and we must try to improve matters.
  The Government give much emphasis to their estate action programme. I remind the House that, since its inception in 1986, the programme has encouraged housing authorities to take a fresh look at the problems on rundown council estates. It has promoted good and responsive management by insisting that the delivery of local services be based on or near the estate in question and that tenants are allowed to be involved in running their own affairs.
  The promotion of good local management has been a prime objective of estate action. We take the view that the day-to-day functions of re-lettings, rent collection and repair and maintenance can often be carried out more effectively and efficiently at local level. That can and should also generate a greater sense of tenant involvement, resulting in the protection of any capital investment made, both because of a better standard of after-care and because the work done will have reflected the tenants' own priorities.
  Estate action has also provided financial support for physical improvements. That is why the national budget has risen from £50 million in 1986–87 to £190 million this year. The emphasis has been on energy conservation, improved security and creating a more attractive environment. One result of capital investment has been to reduce subsequent expenditure by, for example, bringing heating costs more within tenants' reach.
  Estate action has also encouraged authorities to bring in private finance and to diversify ownership by selling unpopular dwellings or unused land to developers and housing associations so that they can provide homes that people want. It is also looking increasingly at training and employment opportunities. I know that unemployment on the Langley estate is a major problem, and a figure as high as 40 per cent. unemployed has been quoted.
  I can understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for our estate action programme, because he need only look at the borough of Rochdale to see the programme's success. Rochdale has been at the forefront in taking advantage of the estate action initiative. The borough council has 10 on-going estate action schemes, including a scheme at the Hollin estate, which is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Those schemes should attract total resources of about £6 million this year. Meanwhile, Manchester city council, especially given the size of its stock and the void rate standing at 6·3 per cent., to be kind, has been very slow in pursuing estate action objectives.
  Among the large number of bids that we received for 1990–91, 14 came from Manchester city council. The council is late in seeking the Government's support. The fact that it has been rather reluctant in the past does not mean that we reject its applications now. However, it inevitably means that we cannot grant all its applications at once. Each year we must look at all the different competing schemes. It is easy to speculate that, if Manchester had started applying for estate action bids

  139
  earlier, it would have had more success over the years and that that would have meant that, in comparison with Rochdale, it might have had an equally good performance.
  Some of the 14 estate action bids that Manchester put forward for 1990–91 need further work to make them competitive. However, we have been able to support four of the schemes, three of which are in the Hulme estate. The hon. Gentleman asked rhetorically whether other estates are worse than Langley. Many people would say that the Hulme estate was in the thick of the competition on that score. The Hulme estate has a mass of serious problems.
  Another estate action bid in Manchester was at Collyhurst. Resources earmarked for those schemes this year total more than £4·5 million or 40 per cent. of the north-west region's estate action budget for new schemes. No other authority in the north-west has had more than two successful estate action bids this year. It is not fair to suggest that Manchester has done badly in the estate action bidding this time. Generous resources have been made available.
  Mr. Callaghan rose——
  Mr. Chope: I shall not give way, because I want to cover the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman, particularly the issue of why we were not able to meet the application for estate action in Langley this time.
  We do not say that the scheme does not contain a number of good features. I am pleased to see that the council is proposing to sell unpopular flats to a private developer and a housing association and that the proposals contain measures to help the unemployed, including a furniture project and plans for a credit union. I hope that the city council can push those matters further.
  The council's proposal has not sufficiently emphasised the needs of the local unemployed. The council should examine the opportunities for job creation and training on the estate. There may be opportunities for small businesses to be started which could provide services to the residents.
  One of the earliest of estate action initiatives was the community refurbishment scheme, through which unemployed people living on an estate can help with the improvement of their own environment. Those schemes work in co-operation with the Training Agency's employment training programme. Local authorities and other training managers, including private contractors, can employ trainees to undertake work typically involving environmental improvements on an estate, with materials being funded by estate action.
  Mr. Callaghan: I have listened to the Minister with great interest, but he is not answering the questions I asked him. I am concerned about Langley. The Minister is talking about what can be done for the unemployed, but if we carry on in this way, there will be no unemployed people or anyone else living on the estate. I want to know what the Minister proposes to do for the estate with estate action money. One thousand houses are empty.
  Mr. Chope: Amazingly, Manchester city council has so far refused to co-operate with the employment training scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, the residents of Langley, will urge the council to reconsider its position in the interests of the economic
  140
  well-being of those residents. Why will not Manchester city council encourage the employment training scheme to play a part? More co-operation is needed between the two councils.
  Under the Government's housing legislation, the tenants on the Langley estate have alternative avenues available to them, in that they can choose an alternative landlord it they are dissatisfied with their existing one. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 to the attention of the tenants of the Langley estate.
  Mr. Callaghan: Will the Minister answer one simple question? Will the Government find any money to repair the 1,000 houses that are empty and are bricked and boarded up and the 2,500 houses that will soon be in a similar state? We do not want to know about training; we want to know about cash.
  Mr. Chope: I can tell the hon. Gentleman about cash. It is not the Government that decide the priorities of individual councils. Manchester city council decides its own housing priorities. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have a new system of capital finance for the current year. One of its objectives is to secure a fairer distribution of resources across the country, and in the case of Manchester the result was an annual capital guideline for housing of over £47·6 million, almost £1 million a week. That is 2·25 times the comparable figure for 1989–90. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that that is an extremely generous allocation. It is for Manchester city council to decide how much of that allocation should be given to the Langley estate.
  I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman when it seems that the people on the Langley estate are crying in the wilderness and that no one on Manchester city council is prepared to give sufficient priority to the estate.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why Langley did not get the estate action bid. Such bids are considered on a comparable basis and on their merits. I have drawn attention to one or two of the shortcomings of the estate action bid that was made in relation to Langley. However, the extremely generous allocation should enable the city council to undertake fresh initiatives on some of its most needy estates, including Langley. The council cannot and should not plead insufficient resources as an excuse for its inaction.
  I hope, therefore, that it will begin now to develop a package of measures for Langley. If the council decides to resubmit its estate action bid later this year, the further development of its proposals on all fronts can only help it to compete with other bids. Its success will depend very much on how far the bid meets estate action objectives compared with other bids. That means that the future of Langley is very much in the hands of Manchester city council. But ultimately, because of the legislation passed by the Government, often with opposition from Labour Members, tenants now have choice and it is possible for the tenants themselves—
  Mr. Callaghan: There are no tenants.
  Mr. Chope: —to choose an alternative landlord and thereby put more pressure on Manchester city council to do something for the people on that estate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve midnight.

THE ARTS

  Nottingham Playhouse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the trading position of the Nottingham Playhouse.

  Mr. Luce
  I understand that an agreement has been reached between the Arts Council and the local authorities to clear the overall deficit of the Nottingham Playhouse by the end of 1992–93.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the supply of rented accommodation and market rents.

  Mr. Chope
  Housing associations are now the main providers of new subsidised rented housing. Planned public expenditure through the Housing Corporation will double to over £1·7 billion by 1992–93; together with the increased scope for associations to use private finance, total output of rented housing by associations and local authorities in England is expected to rise to nearly 40,000 by that year. Council and housing association housing benefits from subsidies which keep rents generally far below market levels, and housing benefit meets up to 100 per cent. of rent for the poorest tenants.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions for river pollution have been carried out by the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that since I September last year, when the National Rivers Authority fully assumed its responsibilities under the Water Act 1989, some 870 prosecutions for river pollution offences have been brought by the NRA or are pending.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total advertising and publicity budget for the London Docklands development corporation for each year since its creation; and what is the estimate for the next three years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested is as follows:

  Publicity and promotion expenditure

  £000's

  1981–82

  961

  1982–83

  2,464

  1983–84

  1,857

  2

  £000's

  1984–85

  2,253

  1985–86

  1,716

  1986–87

  1,728

  1987–88

  1,846

  1988–89

  1,826

  1989–90

  11,960

  1990–91

  23,500

  1991–92

  23,200

  1992–93

  23,100

  1 Provisional.

  2 Estimated.

  Waste Disposal
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the research and development projects currently being undertaken into waste disposal by his Department and related agencies, also giving the cost of each project.

  Mr. Trippier
  The research projects currently under-taken by the Department of the Environment into waste management are listed, together with the total cost of each project.

  There are three areas of research:

  A. Materials Processing. The aim here is to research the provision of safe and effective alternatives to landfilling and also the feasibility of various separation and recovery processes.

  Title

  Total

  Cost £k

  Byker reclamation plant; front-end trommel and associated equipment

  344·6

  Waste analysis research

  152·0

  Analysis and estimation of municipal waste arisings

  61·5

  Incineration characteristics from burning WDF pellets in a coal fired boiler

  138·6

  Waste collection characteristics from selected zones of Nottingham

  16·0

  Composting of WD fines from Castle Bromwich

  118·1

  Investigation of incinerator furnace conditions

  95·0

  Small incinerator investigation

  73·5

  Improving the effectiveness of civic amenity sites and of complementary waste management services

  187·6

  Municipal waste composting

  185·0

  Thermal treatment of waste

  89·0

  Waste Treatment and recovery

  230·0

  Environmental impact of municipal solid waste incinerators

  68·0

  A study of airborne micro-organisms

  29·2

  B. Problem Waste Management. Research in this area is conducted on the immobilisation of difficult wastes or their chemical, thermal or biological detoxification.

  Title

  Total

  Cost (£k)

  Biotechnical systems for the degradation of heavy metals and persistent organic materials

  928·4

  Determination of analytical procedures to define dioxins and furans in soils and to assay soil samples

  412·0

  Stabilisation of organic wastes in clay/cement mixes using quaternary amonium compounds

  257·1

  Anaerobic degradation of polychlorinated biphenyls

  66·0

  Toxic and problem waste management

  719·6

  Polychlorinated biphenyl disposal using cement

  98·1

  Asbestos site database study

  25·5

  A review of clinical waste management systems

  32·0

  Waste management

  323·1

  3
  C. Landfill Practices. This is by far the largest area of research. The aims here are to develop a thorough understanding of the processes occuring within landfills to ensure safe and effective landfilling of wastes, to allow for the optimisation of landfilling as a waste management technique and to provide reassurance as to the acceptability of landfills as a disposal option.

  Landfill research covers five topics:

  (i) the microbiology of landfills and studies of landfill gas and leachate composition and generation.

  Title

  Total

  Cost

  (£k)

  Mathematical modelling of landfill behaviour

  207·7

  A review of the technical aspects of co-disposal

  27·4

  Landfill characterisation relative to methane incidence

  429·5

  Biotechnical methods of stabilising landfills

  282·5

  Assessment of landfill gas potential by the interpretation of leachate and gas analysis

  75·1

  Landfill management

  396·9

  Methane oxidation in soils

  74·1

  A study of landfill gas in the Llanharry area

  20·0

  A review of research into landfill microbiology

  19·4

  Inhibition of methane production

  108·2

  Comparison of landfill gas potential tests

  55·7

  (ii) Studies of the mechanisms of attenuation of leachate and gas

  Title

  Total

  cost

  (£k)

  Attenuation of organic leachate in a sand blanket beneath the Washington landfill.

  63·2

  Instrumentation of a permeable liner in the base of Stangate-East landfill.

  279·7

  The effectiveness of an impermeable clay liner formed in situ.

  49·6

  A study of the migration of organic contaminants from Pakefield waste disposal site.

  25·0

  Control of landfill gas migration by passive venting.

  49·0

  Automated measurements of aquifer dispersivity.

  252·0

  Assessment of the problems associated with the landfilling of wastes and the effectiveness of remedial measures.

  219·9

  Leachate attentuation studies.

  23·0

  The development of a numerical method for modelling gas flows from landfill sites and experimental studies of gas flow through selected porous materials.

  379·5

  (iii) leachate management studies

  Title

  Total

  Cost

  (£k)

  Leachate treatment by irrigation to grass and woodland

  122·6

  Landfill research

  1,025·4

  Reed-bed treatment of landfill leachate

  90·0

  Leachate treatment to surface water quality standards using reed bed polishing

  98·0

  Sulphate based anaerobic digestion of leachate

  69·5

  Leachate management systems

  66·6

  Management of the environmental effects of landfill disposal of waste

  242·9

  A review of leachate composition, attenuation and treatment

  84·9

  An investigation of the chemical, physical and hydrological properties of refuse

  142·2

  4

  (iv) the development of monitoring procedures

  Title

  Total

  Cost

  (£k)

  The use of carbon/hydrogen isotope ratios to identify methane sources

  96·1

  Appraisal of hazards related to landfill gas production and the development of a simple procedure to evaluate associated risks

  92·0

  Long path gas monitor development

  45·6

  Landfill sampling and monitoring

  43·5

  Gas migration modelling

  34·1

  (v) landfill reinstatement studies

  Title

  Total

  Cost

  (£k)

  Assessment of the integrity of clay capping to landfills

  35·3

  The effectiveness of the cap at Milton landfill

  143·0

  A study of fungal activity in promoting tree growth on landfills

  43·2

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of those waste disposal sites in England known to his Department where mass disposal of tyres has taken place.

  Mr. Trippier
  Records of sites used for the disposal of waste tyres are not held centrally. However, HMIP knows of some 400 closed or active sites which have been licensed to take scrap rubber, including tyres.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of all former waste disposal sites in England that are known to contain PCBs in drums.

  Mr. Trippier
  No such information is available. However in waste management paper No. 6 (1976) on the reclamation, treatment and disposal of PCBs, the Department recommends that where recovery is not possible, PCBs should generally be disposed of by high temperature incineration.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), to the hon. Member for Gloucester of 4 April, if local authorities are obliged to reveal on request whether they are levying a standard community charge at less than twice the personal community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  Where a charging authority has specified a class of property for the purposes of setting a different multiplier from that generally applied, it is required to publish a notice giving details of the exercise of the power in at least one local newspaper within 21 days of making the specification. Authorities are required to give information on their standard community charges in their standard charge demand notices. It follows therefore that they should be able to give details of their classes and multipliers to those who ask for them.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities which would have been placed under capping arrangements under the community charge regulations had he not imposed the qualification on spending levels.
  5
  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 20 April 1990,Official Report, column 1031.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to inform directly all those local authorities which have not been subject to capping that he approves the particular community charge which applies in those areas.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement about the community charge liability of seafarers and offshore workers who spend significant parts of the year away from their homes and who have no second homes.

  Mr. Chope
  As I explained to my hon. Friend on 21 March Official Report, column 660, and 3 April, Official Report, column 564, it is initially the responsibility of the community charge registration officer to decide whether a person is solely or mainly resident in his area. In this respect offshore workers are no different from any other potential charge payer. It is open to charge payers to appeal to their local valuation and community charge tribunal against their entry on the community charges register.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of people employed full time in each region of England, Scotland and Wales in the collection of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money is tied up in banks because of the Government's refusal to allow local authorities to spend capital receipts(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Nottingham city council.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: Local authority debt in England at March 1989 was some £46 billion, of which Nottingham city council's debt was £424 million. One of the objectives of the new capital finance system provided in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is that local authorities should use some of their capital receipts to reduce their indebtedness. Accordingly capital receipts are divided into a reserved part to be set aside as provision for credit liabilities and a usable balance.

  The reserved part may be used at any time to repay debt, to meet liabilities under credit arrangements, or, where a credit approval has been used as authority not to charge expenditure to a revenue account, to meet that expenditure as a substitute for external borrowing.

  The usable part may be applied at any time and at the discretion of the authority concerned to meet expenditure incurred for capital purposes or as voluntary provision for credit liabilities.

  There are no capital receipts which, under the legislation now in force, local authorities in England cannot use.

  My right hon. Friend has no ministerial responsibility for local authority capital finance in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Water Distribution
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the percentage of water in England and Wales that is lost by avoidable leakage in distribution.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 24 January to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) (Official Report, c. 762).

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now issue formal detailed implementation advice for the EC bathing waters directive (76/160/EEC) to the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The National Rivers Authority is the competent authority in England and Wales for the purposes of implementing the EC bathing waters directive (76/160/EEC). The Directive contains details of the standards to be attained at identified bathing waters and the arrangements for monitoring water quality. I have no plans to issue further implementation advice to the National Rivers Authority.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the reason for excluding monitoring for salmonella and enteroviruses from the result of the bathing water survey which is announced to Parliament;

  (2) if he will give figures for the number of designated beaches which comply with the EC bathing water directive if the parameters for salmonella and enteroviruses are taken into account.

  Mr. Trippier
  The report that I placed in the Library, as stated in the Official Report, 25 January 1990, column 485, contains the available results for salmonella and enteroviruses.

  European Council
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchele,Official Report, 27 March, columns 117–18, if he will publish in the Official Report the representations from the United Kingdom which were considered at the Environment Council on 22 March during the debate on whether to establish a European environmental agency.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The main terms of the regulation to establish a European Environment Agency were agreed at the Environment Council on 28 November 1989. The Environment Council on 22 March 1990 considered a number of amendments to the regulation put forward by the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment stressed the importance of recognising that the European Parliament had tried hard to produce amendments which would be acceptable to the Council and that the European Parliament's proposal for a review of the agency's tasks after two years made good sense. This view was accepted by the Council.

  Wells
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to the introduction of grants to enable people residing near suitable sites to sink wells to extract potable water.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to introduce specific grants for this purpose. Grants are available under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts towards the cost of first-time connections to mains water supplies in rural areas. In addition, part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which is expected to come into force on 1 July 1990, provides for a new system of renovation grants. In certain circumstances, a renovation grant may be available to improve the quality of the water supply to a property which does not have an adequate piped supply of wholesome water and is thereby unfit for human habitation. It will be for the local authority concerned to specify what improvements are necessary and to consider any application for a grant towards their cost.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the quality of drinking water from private wells.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The quality standards in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations made under the Water Act 1989 apply to private drinking water supplies. Local authorities are required to keep themselves informed about the quality of private supplies in their area and have powers under the Water Act to require improvements to be made to unwholesome supplies. An advisory group is currently considering the content of further regulations to be made later this year about the sampling programmes that local authorities will be required to carry out for private supplies.

  Residential Developments (Soil Contamination)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of former waste disposal sites in England on which residential development has taken place without monitoring for possible contaminants transferred to garden vegetables grown on such sites.

  Mr. Trippier
  No such information is held centrally. Decisions on the monitoring and assessment of former waste disposal sites for further use, including development purposes, are the responsibility of local authorities have relevant duties under town and country planning and public health legislation.

  Housing Corporation
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Housing Corporation; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of the Housing Corporation on 8 February and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning had a further meeting with him on 21 February. A variety of topics of mutual interest were discussed.

  Smoke Emissions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the black smoke emitted by road transport reported in his Department's statistical digest No. 12, page 14, is estimated to come from diesel vehicles; what are the relative contributions of diesel smoke and smoke from domestic sources to overall smoke emissions in smoke control areas; and what information he has about the relative soiling effects of diesel smoke in comparison with coal smoke.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is estimated that 184,000 tonnes of black smoke was emitted by road transport in 1988 and that 92 per cent. of emissions from transport came from diesel vehicles.

  Information is not available for the relative soiling effects of diesel smoke in comparison with coal smoke, or for the relative contributions of diesel smoke and smoke from domestic sources to overall smoke emissions in smoke control areas. Emissions of black smoke from domestic sources for the United Kingdom as a whole have fallen by approximately 71 per cent. since 1970, while emissions from diesel vehicles have risen by 86 per cent. over the same period.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest have been(a) denotified and (b) damaged for each year since 1981; and what percentage for each year is related to (i) road building, (ii) forestry, (iii) farming activities, (iv) landfill operations and (v) other reasons.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in the form requested. Since I April 1984, information on the numbers of SSSIs damaged is set out in the Nature Conservancy Council's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to eliminate the use of ozone-depleting substances in(a) refrigerants, (b) solvents and (c) foams; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The ozone layer can be protectd only by international action. The Montreal protocol is due for revision in June. We are pressing for rapid cuts in the supply of CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride, with their elimination by the year 2000. Methyl chloroform must also be cut substantially. If the revised protocol is not strong enough, we will press for further restrictions within the European Community.

  Wild Birds (Poisoning)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made an assessment of the impact on populations of wild birds of exposure to pesticide cocktails; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food assesses the environmental implication of all pesticides before their use is approved. Approval
  9
  requires the consent of six Departments, including that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As part of its work, the advisory committee will be considering the findings of a recent study by Reading university and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology into the effect on partridges of concurrent exposure to fungicides and pesticides.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to eliminate illegal poisoning of birds of prey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Strict controls are already in place to deter the illegal use of pesticides against birds of prey. Severe penalties are available for such offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, and incidents of abuse are pursued vigorously through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wildlife incident investigations scheme. In addition, the Nature Conservancy Council is currently reviewing the matter of illegal poisoning.

  Sewage
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) of 2 April,Official Report, column 478, who will determine whether sewage discharges subjected to primary treatment have an adverse environmental effect.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is for the National Rivers Authority to consent applications for discharges to controlled waters taking into account the provisions of any relevant EEC directives, and any directions from my right hon. Friends.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made an assessment of the implications for coastal areas of an increase in global warming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The United Kingdom is contributing to the work of the coastal zone management sub-group of the inter-governmental panel on climate change which is assessing the impact of global warming on coastal areas worldwide. Coastal defence in the United Kingdom is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Owls
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the estimated population in England of(a) barn owls and (b) tawny owls; and what steps he is taking to protect owl populations;

  (2) what is the estimated annual death toll of (a) barn owls and (b) tawny owls; and what percentage of deaths in each case are ascribed to (i) traffic, (ii) pesticide or other chemical poisoning, (iii) loss of habitat, (iv) starvation and (v) other causes.

  Mr. Trippier
  The current British populations of barn owls and tawny owls are estimated at 4,400 and 50,000–100,000 breeding pairs, respectively. Overall annual mortality rates cannot be estimated, but of those birds reported as found dead 30 per cent. of both species had died from collisions with traffic.
  10
  All wild owls in Britain are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; the barn owl is included in schedule 1 to the Act as a particularly endangered species protected by special penalties.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what checks have been undertaken to establish atmospheric levels of krypton 85 in the vicinity of Sellafield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Krypton 85 is an inert gas and cannot concentrate in the environment. Checks undertaken in the late 1970s demonstrated that levels of krypton 85 in the environment around Sellafield were consistent with those calculated from measured Sellafield discharges using standard aerial dispersion modelling techniques. No further checks have been carried out.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the discharge levels of radioactivity to the air in TBq from Sellafield for each year from 1975 to 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Trippier
  Data on the radioactive atmospheric discharges from BNFL's Sellafield works are included in my Department's annual "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Information for the period 1975–88 is as follows:

  Sellafield Aerial Discharges 1975 to 1988

  Year

  Discharges (TBq/Yr)

  Argon-41

  Tritium

  Kryplon-85

  1975

  1,110

  444

  44,400

  1976

  799

  444

  44,400

  1977

  962

  296

  29,600

  1978

  1,070

  222

  25,900

  1979

  1,150

  280

  34,800

  1980

  1,110

  252

  31,100

  1981

  1,300

  459

  51,800

  1982

  1,320

  360

  44,000

  1983

  1,340

  268

  41,800

  1984

  1,352

  349

  37,100

  1985

  2,800

  268

  23,800

  1986

  2,590

  171

  53,300

  1987

  2,400

  783

  34,000

  1988

  2,420

  186

  39,700

  Other radionuclides, of which carbon-14 is the main component, do not exceed 10 TBq per year.

  Information for 1989 is not yet available.

  Elephant Conservation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who represented Her Majesty's Government at the conference on African elephants in Paris on 5 and 6 April; and how much was offered by Her Majesty's Government for elephant conservation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government were represented at the conference by officials from the Department of the Environment and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, accompanied by the officer of the Nature Conservancy Council. The British delegation explained to the conference that the Government are already making very substantial efforts to support wildlife conservation in Africa. We are providing some £3 million in aid for a wide variety of projects, a number of which will have major
  11
  benefits for the African elephant, and are always ready to consider new requests from African Governments seeking help with the sustainable management and conservation of their wildlife resources.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding ivory imported into the United Kingdom by Mr. Shivaz Virji of Ealing and currently held at ports of entry.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information held by the Department relates to an application for a CITES re-export licence. Information contained in licence applications is regarded by the Department as confidential and cannot be released.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding ivory currently held at United Kingdom ports of entry which is not accompanied by CITES documentation.

  Mr. Trippier
  Such information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Drinking Water (Radon)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis has been carried out to establish levels of dissolved radon in drinking water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Radon in water results from the structure of the ground from which the supply emanates. It is believed to be confined to a few areas. Where radon is likely to be present in a water source, a specific analysis is carried out and the water company may treat the water to remove it, seeking advice on levels from the National Radiological Protection Board. No standard is set for radon in the EC drinking water directive or the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations which incorporate the provisions of the directive. We are currently reviewing the matter of radiological standards.

  Carbon Tetrachloride
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the presence of carbon tetrachloride in water sources.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Carbon tetrachloride is a list I substance under directive 76/464/EEC on discharges of dangerous substances, and its concentrations in surface waters near to the point of discharge may not exceed 12 ug/l (annual average). Direct discharges to ground water are banned. There are no specific requirements for carbon tetrachloride in water sources because directive 75/440/EEC on the quality of surface waters abstracted for drinking water does not lay down standards for this substance. However, regulations under the Water Act 1989 require that concentrations in public or private drinking water supplies may not exceed 3 ug/l (annual average).

  Carbon tetrachloride is not a common problem in water sources; in the known few occurrences where it has been found in excessive quantities appropriate action has been taken.

  Environmental Meetings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all future environmental(a) conferences, (b) seminars and (c) meetings which Ministers in his Department have been invited to attend (i) in the United Kingdom, (ii) in the European Community, and (iii) elsewhere; and if he will list the dates of these events.

  Mr. Trippier
  Over the next two months Ministers are to attend the following conferences, seminars and meetings in:

  (a) the United Kingdom

  Date

  23 April

  DOE/HSE Conference on the Regulation of Bio-technology

  Financial Times Conference on Industry and the Environment

  Waste Producers Conference

  5 May

  West Sussex County Conference on Recycling

  14 May

  Conference at Lancashire College of Agriculture

  15 May

  Brunel University Symposium on Landfill

  17 May

  National Parks Conference, Newcastle

  6 June

  CBI Conference on Green Audits

  20 June

  Institution of Civil Engineers Annual Conference

  (b) Overseas

  Date

  21 to 23 April

  Informal EC Council (West of Ireland)

  8 to 16 May

  Ministerial follow-up to Brundtland Report (Bergen)

  7 June

  EC Environment Council (Luxembourg)

  16 June

  EC Ministerial meeting with East Europe (Dublin)

  20 to 29 June

  2nd meeting of Montreal Protocol Parties (London)

  Foxes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated population of foxes in England; and what comparable figures he has for earlier years.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am not aware of any population estimates for foxes in England.

  Caravans (London)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the numbers of caravans which can be accommodated on permanent sites provided under the Caravan Sites Act in each of the London boroughs.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 April 1990]: London boroughs have made provision for the following numbers of authorised caravan pitches on which the following number of caravans were parked as at January 1990:
  13

  Pitches

  Caravans

  Barking and Dagenham

  16

  16

  Bexley

  16

  7

  Brent

  15

  31

  Bromley

  22

  35

  Croydon

  15

  15

  Ealing

  24

  53

  Enfield

  15

  26

  Greenwich

  54

  64

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  20

  50

  Haringey

  24

  51

  Harrow

  15

  13

  Havering

  16

  4

  Hillingdon

  30

  30

  Hounslow

  17

  17

  Kingston upon Thames

  15

  15

  Lambeth

  15

  23

  Lewisham

  16

  26

  Merton

  15

  15

  Newham

  15

  15

  Red bridge

  17

  16

  Richmond upon Thames

  15

  15

  Southwark

  15

  15

  Sutton

  15

  15

  Tower Hamlets

  15

  19

  Waltham Forest

  16

  13

  Wandsworth

  12

  11

  Homelessness
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the terms on which the recently announced Government initiative on homelessness in the south-east is to operate; whether any additional grant is to be payable to councils with approved schemes; whether any subsidy is payable by Government on the revenue or capital costs of approved projects; and whether councils' housing revenue accounts will need to cover(a) initial and (b) consequential expenditure on the projects from rent income.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: We will allocate to local authorities in London and the south-east supplementary credit approvals in respect of capital expenditure they incur on approved schemes in 1990–91. Initial and consequential costs of those schemes which involve property held within the housing revenue account (HRA) or certain types of payments to tenants of such property will fall to be charged to the HRA of the authority concerned. Such approved schemes will include repair of empty council property, hostels held under part II of the Housing Act 1985 and cash incentives to tenants. To the extent that costs are chargeable to the HRA, the normal rules for all HRA schemes will apply in determining the extent to which they attract subsidy and the extent to which costs are met from rent income. The Housing Corporation will pay revenue grant to local authority-funded housing association schemes as appropriate under the normal funding arrangements. No additional grant, however, will be directly payable to any local authority for such schemes.

  Asbestos (Tower Blocks)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tower blocks in use as domestic accommodation have steelwork coated with any form of asbestos; and where they are located.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 20 April 1990]: The Department is aware of only three public sector
  14
  high-rise blocks using this form of construction. Two are located on the Elgin estate, Westminster; and one at Watney Street market, Tower Hamlets.

  Static Electricity
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of static electricity within the House.

  Mr. Chope
  The level of antistatic electricity at any time depends on the level of atmospheric humidity. This is true both within the House and outside.

  Sewage Dumping
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify for each sewage sludge dump off the coasts of England and Wales the timing between now and 1998 for each dump being terminated for use.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not yet available. Following the announcement on 5 March that the dumping of sewage sludge at sea would not be permitted after the end of 1998 holders of licences are beginning now to draw up their plans for termination of dumping.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Shipping
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he intends to introduce to enable United Kingdom shipping companies to maintain their merchant fleets and crews, replace their aging tonnage and improve their rates of return.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 5 April 1990,Official Report, c. 717–18.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) of 5 April,Official Report, column 718, what is his estimate of (a) the current rate of return on investment in a large container ship and (b) the rate of return if he reinstated 100 per cent. ship allowance, against investment in new and second hand ships.

  Mr. Lilley
  The answer to these two questions depends critically on assumptions about a number of factors, including the earnings of the vessel over its life and the eventual proceeds from its sale (perhaps in 10 or 20 years' time). The rate of return on any investment in machinery or plant—whether it is a ship or any other asset—will increase if an Exchequer subsidy is given. However, my right hon. Friend has no plans to change the present capital allowances regime for ships, which already offers more generous deductions than commercial depreciation.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) of 12 March,Official Report, column 10, the announcement of 26 July 1985 that the figure of £10 million was an estimate and was not either a target or a limit remains Government policy.
  15
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I confirm that the announcement made on 26 July 1985 (Official Report, House of Lords column, 1539–40) by the then Minister for the Arts still represents Government policy.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister when the European Council next plans to discuss the issue of monetary union; and if she will make a statement on the progress made to date on this issue by the Council.

  The Prime Minister
  Agenda for the European Council are not formally set but the issue of economic and monetary union is next likely to arise at the meeting on 25–26 June. The European Council last discussed EMU at its meeting in Strasbourg on 8–9 December the results of which I reported to the House on 12 December at column 857.

  Child Care and Family Services
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments have responsibilities for child care and family responsibilities; what they are; what mechanisms there are for co-ordination in these matters; and if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on child care.

  The Prime Minister
  While the Department of Health has a lead responsibility on child care almost all Government Departments have policies which affect child care and family life. Each Minister is responsible for policies within his own sphere. Co-ordination is achieved through the normal and well-established process of inter-departmental liaison, and additional collaborative arrangements exist in the form of the inter-departmental committees, such as the ministerial group on women's issues, the inter-departmental group on day care and the inter-departmental group on child abuse. Government policy on child care is reflected in the Children Act 1989.

  Law Officers' Letters
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the guidelines relevant to the approval of the release of Law Officers' letters.

  The Prime Minister
  Legal opinions or advice given by the Law Officers, either individually or collectively, must not be disclosed outside Government without their express approval.

  Iraq (Arms Component Exports)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date she received the first indication that there was a problem regarding the export of forgings from Walter Somers and Company to Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  Earlier this month.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 18 April (1) if she will make a statement on the circumstances in which Mr. Powell met in any official capacity the proprietor of The Daily Telegraph;
  16
  (2) if she will list the attempts to which she refers of the hon. Member for Linlithgow to vilify individual civil servants.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 18 April at column 932.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is his estimate of the cost of preparation for the inclusion in the national curriculum of those subjects which he has recently removed from this arrangement as far as primary schools are concerned;

  (2) what is his estimate of the total number of man hours which have been devoted by officials of his Department, by local authority officers and by teachers, to the preparation for inclusion in the national curriculum of those subjects which have now been removed from this arrangement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No core or foundation subject has been removed from the national curriculum. My right hon. Friend did, however, announce in a published letter to the chairman of the School Examinations and Assessment Council on 9 April that the arrangements for statutorily assessing seven-year-olds in technology, history and geography should be kept simple and that, accordingly, he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales had reached the provisional conclusion that it would be right not to impose a statutory requirement to administer standard assessment tasks (SATs) to seven-year-olds in these subjects. Prior to that announcement, no work involving schools or LEAs had been undertaken on the development of SATs in these subjects for seven-year-olds. The preparatory work undertaken by schools and LEAs to date has mainly been directed towards the first statutory assessments of seven-year-olds in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science in 1991. My right hon. Friend confirmed in his letter to SEAC that these assessments would be based on a combination of teacher assessment and statutory SATs.

  Youth Organisations
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list, for the previous and current year, the youth organisations for which his Department provides funding, indicating the amount in each case allocated for project funding and the amount allocated for core funding;

  (2) how he intends to ensure that there is a national forum for the interchange of views of young people;

  (3) what discussions he has had with the British Youth Council on its 1990–91 funding applications;

  (4) what plans he has to ensure that youth bodies receive core as well as project funding in the light of the report on the efficiency scrutiny of Government funding of the voluntary sector;

  (5) what he intends should be the basis for representations from participating youth bodies on his proposed national youth agency;

  (6) what discussions he has had or will have with youth organisations on the report on the efficiency scrutiny of Government funding of the voluntary sector;
  17
  (7) what discussions he had with the British Youth Council concerning his proposals for a national youth agency prior to his announcement on 5 April;

  (8) how many representative youth organisations are currently funded by his Department;

  (9) what provision he will make in his proposed national youth agency for participating youth bodies to retain their respective identities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department provides funding to a number of youth service bodies for the completion of specific programmes of work which are recognised as contributing to the effective and efficient implementation of ministerial objectives to improve the quality of youth service work on a national basis through, for example, the development of curriculum and training materials.

  In the 1989–90 financial year this funding takes into account the level of expenditure by the bodies on staffing and administration which the Department considers appropriate for them efficiently to complete the agreed programmes of work.

  £

  British Youth Council (BYC)

  30,000

  Council for Education and Training in Youth and Community Work (CETYCW)

  278,094

  National Association of Young People's Counselling and Advisory Services (NAYPCAS)

  53,000

  National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (NCVYS)

  127,893

  National Youth Bureau (NYB)

  557,210

  For the 1990–91 financial year, offers of programme funding of £46,265 have been made to NAYPCAS, and of £571,140 to NYB.

  The level of programme funding which might be offered this year to CETYCW and NCVYS is under discussion with the bodies. BYC applied for funding for 1990–91 as a national voluntary youth organisation (NVYO), but discussion is necessary before the level of any programme funding under this scheme can be determined.

  To determine the organisation of such funding in future, we commissioned an independent report, which took account of the views of the bodies concerned. In the light of this and of the Home Office efficiency scrutiny of Government funding of the voluntary sector, which also draws on the views of voluntary bodies, we have determined to focus future programme funding for support of youth service work at national level on a single national youth agency, rather than on the existing four youth service bodies or an amalgam of them. The agency will be managed by an executive committee, whose composition will be discussed with the main interests involved in and with experience of the functions the agency is to undertake. It is from these interests that the committee members will be drawn, rather than nominated as representatives of particular bodies or organisations.

  BYC, NAYPCAS and NCVYS, which also have representative functions, which we would expect their members to finance may, if they decide to continue, compete for funding from the Department, under the NVYO scheme, for agreed programmes of support work which the national youth agency is not being funded to pursue.
  18
  The NVYO funding scheme is to be reviewed this year, in consultation with the organisations concerned, in the light of the efficiency scrutiny review, to ensure that the available public moneys are disbursed and applied as efficiently and effectively as possible through programmes of work in pursuit of ministerial objectives.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  St. Leonard's Home, Warrenpoint
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to prevent the closure of St. Leonard's home, located in Warrenpoint in South Down.

  Mr. Needham
  As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 19 March,Official Report, columns 448–49, the Southern health and social services board is continuing to explore the possibilities of providing more suitable accommodation for the residents of St. Leonard's. No decision has been taken on the future of the home.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General how many applications for legal aid have been received from parents of brain-damaged children who wish to pursue a claim for medical negligence; and what percentage of the applications have been successful.

  The Attorney-General
  The Legal Aid Board receives in the order of 400,000 applications each year. The board's case information system identifies only the broad category of "medical negligence" and does not identify particular types of damage within that category. Further, the system identifies applicants only as male or female, defendants or plaintiffs and not whether or not they are children or parents or next friends on behalf of children.

  It would, therefore, not be practicable to extract the information requested.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he is considering any further changes to the current tort-based system, particularly with reference to parents who wish to sue for compensation for their brain-damaged children.

  The Attorney-General
  My noble and learned Friend is considering the feasibility of a no-fault compensation scheme, restricted to less serious road accidents and financed by private insurance. No other changes to the tort-based system are being considered.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the number of schemes settling the future of redundant churches which were confirmed during each of the past five years.

  Mr. Alison
  In the last five calendar years, the future of 253 redundant churches was settled by Pastoral Measure schemes, 50 in 1985, 62 in 1986, 50 in 1987, 47 in 1988 and 44 in 1989.

  Archbishop of Canterbury
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what funding the Church Commissioners provide in respect of the salary and administration of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners pay the stipend of the archbishop and meet the costs of his supporting staff and their equipment.

  Clergy (Stipends)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much the Church Commissioners contributed to the stipends of archbishops, bishops and clergy in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  Out of their investment income the Commissioners contributed to clergy stipends £38·7 million in 1987, £42·5 million in 1988 and an estimated £50 million in 1989. These figures represent about 35 per cent. of the Commissioners' investment income in each year and met some 40 per cent. of the clergy stipends bill.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Riots
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of prisoners including remand prisoners who participated in riots inside prisons from late March; and if he will provide his estimate of the costs of damage at each prison where riots or disturbances occurred.

  Mr. Mellor
  A total of more than 1,000 inmates (including those on remand) were present—although not necessarily participating—in the particular parts of prisons where disturbances began during the period 1–9 April. Until police investigations are concluded it will not be possible to distinguish the number of active participants from others.

  The most serious damage occurred at Manchester, Bristol and Dartmoor prisons. It will not be possible to estimate costs at Manchester until the incident there is concluded. In addition to repairing the damage at Bristol and Dartmoor our intention is to upgrade the accommodation there, to provide integral sanitation and

  Table 1

  Procedure

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Appeals received

  52

  53

  60

  56

  Appeals withdrawn before decision reached

  6

  7

  9

  8

  Appeals determined

  46

  46

  51

  48

  Referred to a tribunal

  34

  33

  46

  43

  Not referred to a tribunal

  12

  13

  5

  5

  20
  other planned improvements. The overall cost of this work, including the repairs, is estimated at £3 million at Bristol and £3·5 million at Dartmoor.

  Costs of repairing the minor damage to other establishments have yet to be finally assessed.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the violence in Manchester's Strangeways prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since my right hon. and learned Friend last reported to the House on 5 April about the position at Manchester prison, 15 men have surrendered to the authorities, but seven inmates, whom we believe we have identified by name, remain in the prison. Negotiations are continuing with the aim of resolving the disturbance without further injury to staff or inmates.

  Parole
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a serving prisoner's application for and consideration of parole can be affected by the fact that his appeal against either conviction or sentence is still awaiting determination by the Court of Appeal or other appellate tribunals.

  Mr. Mellor
  Neither a prisoner's eligibility for parole nor consideration of the case is affected by an outstanding appeal against conviction or sentence.

  Police Disciplinary Proceedings
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list separately for each of the last four years for which figures are available(a) the number of appeals from police disciplinary hearings he received, (b) the number of such appeals he referred to an appeal tribunal under the 1975 criteria, (c) the number he referred to an appeal tribunal other than under the 1975 criteria, (d) the number dealt with other than by reference to an appeal tribunal, (e) the total and percentage where the original finding was (i) upheld and (ii) reversed, and (f) the total and percentage where the original punishment was (i) upheld and (ii) reversed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Appeals to the Secretary of State against police disciplinary decisions are made under section 37 of the Police Act 1964, as amended by section 103 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Available figures for the years 1986 to 1989 are as follows:
  21

  Table 2

  Outcome

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Original finding:

  (a) Upheld

  21

  95

  13

  52

  12

  75

  5

  83

  (b) Reversed

  1

  5

  12

  48

  4

  25

  1

  17

  Original punishment:

  (a) Upheld

  32

  74

  26

  56

  33

  65

  16

  64

  (b) Varied

  11

  26

  20

  44

  18

  35

  9

  36

  Appeals not yet concluded

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  —

  The figures in table 2 do not add up to the total appeals determined in table 1. Appeals can be made against finding or punishment or both and may cover more than one disciplinary charge. Where appeals cover more than one charge some charges may be upheld and others not. A decision is not shown in table 2 as upheld unless it was upheld in respect of all charges.

  The final decision on all appeals is made personally by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each of the last four years for which figures are available, the number of complaints made against the police in England and Wales falling within each disciplinary offence contained in the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985; how many of those were substantiated and how many were unsubstantiated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The numbers of complaints against the police, the numbers substantiated and the numbers unsubstantiated are published annually in the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, copies of which are available in the Library. Complaints are not categorised under the same headings as offences against the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) of 2 April,Official Report, column 434, when he expects to make available his evaluation of the outcome of the trials of electronic tagging.

  Mr. John Patten
  I expect the evaluation to be completed in the summer. Its results will then be published in due course.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has regarding the number of Metropolitan police person hours and the cost arising from the recent ambulance dispute.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the Metropolitan police

  Issue of police firearms for incidents involving criminal or other persons known or believed to be armed

  1982

  11983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Avon and Somerset

  30

  28

  17

  25

  13

  9

  19

  27

  Bedfordshire

  55

  22

  10

  19

  22

  12

  24

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  10

  8

  11

  9

  13

  19

  31

  Cheshire

  18

  11

  13

  6

  6

  13

  31

  16

  22
  used about 658,000 man hours in providing assistance to the ambulance service during the dispute. The force has charged the South West Thames regional health authority £9·68 million for its assistance.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation he is prepared to grant Mr. David Owen of the firm Elizabeth the Chef of Leamington Spa for his out-of-pocket costs involved in preparing to defend a case brought by the Commission for Racial Equality where the complainant withdrew her allegation two days before the hearing.

  Mr. John Patten
  The question of costs in industrial tribunal cases is a matter for the tribunal. The complaint here was not brought by the Commission for Racial Equality, but by an individual, the commission exercising its role of providing for advice or assistance, in this case through a firm of solicitors. The Secretary of State has no responsibility in law in these matters.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the work force in Hong Kong, as categorised and sub-categorised in the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill, selection for citizenship: explanatory note, will be eligible for British passports.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Approximately 22·5 per cent of people employed in Hong Kong work in the eligible occupations mentioned in the explanatory note; others may be able to apply in due course in the residual category of the general allocation section. It is not possible to say at this stage what proportion of those mentioned above will meet the eligibility criteria set out in paragraph 4(1) of schedule 1 to the Bill.

  Police (Firearms)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many issues of arms there have been to each police force, and in total, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The readily available information is set out in the table.
  23

  1982

  11983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Cleveland

  7

  6

  8

  6

  10

  6

  5

  1

  City of London

  255

  11

  4

  43

  26

  16

  17

  17

  Cumbria

  16

  2

  5

  11

  15

  15

  9

  7

  Derbyshire

  14

  3

  8

  5

  6

  5

  10

  10

  Devon and Cornwall

  12

  24

  28

  21

  25

  21

  22

  32

  Dorset

  9

  14

  27

  12

  16

  12

  14

  26

  Durham

  5

  6

  10

  9

  8

  29

  10

  17

  Essex

  55

  71

  44

  56

  31

  28

  44

  57

  Gloucestershire

  24

  7

  7

  17

  4

  2

  2

  7

  Greater Manchester

  75

  84

  52

  65

  50

  79

  50

  74

  Hampshire

  45

  19

  23

  23

  11

  15

  28

  27

  Hertfordshire

  33

  15

  27

  29

  46

  61

  14

  15

  Humberside

  30

  27

  56

  23

  18

  25

  10

  26

  Kent

  150

  42

  37

  40

  43

  27

  31

  41

  Lancashire

  34

  30

  35

  28

  21

  9

  19

  2

  Leicestershire

  12

  4

  8

  11

  9

  14

  9

  12

  Lincolnshire

  11

  6

  2

  2

  3

  3

  6

  10

  Merseyside

  118

  106

  61

  49

  39

  32

  39

  52

  Metropolitan

  6,035

  2,230

  1,838

  1,642

  1,702

  1,332

  1,320

  1,363

  Norfolk

  23

  12

  13

  12

  12

  13

  13

  14

  Northamptonshire

  35

  3

  6

  10

  5

  3

  5

  8

  Northumbria

  23

  26

  15

  16

  29

  30

  47

  110

  North Yorkshire

  18

  19

  14

  9

  15

  21

  12

  21

  Nottinghamshire

  46

  10

  10

  9

  13

  10

  5

  6

  South Yorkshire

  76

  18

  13

  26

  21

  23

  31

  64

  Staffordshire

  23

  5

  5

  11

  17

  11

  28

  20

  Suffolk

  15

  11

  17

  17

  25

  32

  32

  27

  Surrey

  58

  20

  32

  25

  9

  19

  30

  61

  Sussex

  80

  53

  51

  46

  51

  18

  46

  68

  Thames Valley

  28

  30

  17

  30

  15

  42

  31

  24

  Warwickshire

  11

  9

  8

  6

  1

  3

  4

  0

  West Mercia

  33

  15

  12

  4

  4

  6

  5

  9

  West Midlands

  59

  24

  17

  25

  27

  41

  26

  66

  West Yorkshire

  302

  113

  78

  58

  53

  84

  99

  132

  Wiltshire

  12

  11

  12

  9

  5

  8

  9

  26

  Dyfed Powys

  4

  4

  3

  5

  1

  10

  7

  14

  Gwent

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  2

  4

  8

  North Wales

  26

  11

  10

  8

  9

  19

  27

  10

  South Wales

  26

  7

  4

  7

  7

  12

  14

  9

  Total

  7,952

  3,180

  2,667

  2,488

  2,453

  2,185

  2,227

  2,583

  1 From 1983 the figures record the number of operations in which firearms were issued; the figure for 1982 records the number of occasions on which firearms were issued.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation to discuss the corporation's education and training role; and what is his policy on the dissemination of video recordings promoting the services of companies associated with quasi-religious cults.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman and governors of the BBC from time to time to discuss a wide range of broadcasting issues.

  Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 the British Board of Film Classification has a duty to classify videos in terms of their availability to particular audiences, but those concerned with sport, religion or music are exempted.

  The Government understand the concern which some people have about the activities of certain cults and we have considerable sympathy with those whose rights have been adversely affected by such groups, but so long as they operate within the law we do not believe that it would be right to decide that some religious movements are acceptable and some not.

  Penal Establishments
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles are currently held in penal establishments(a) on remand and (b) under sentence; in which establishments they are held; and how many of them are from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the table "Persons aged under 17 held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 December 1989: by establishment, type of prisoner and ethnic origin", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Chatlines
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost so far of telephone calls made on 0898 numbers(a) by members of the Metropolitan police and (b) by employees of his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 30 March 1990]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information requested is not available. Possible abuse came to the attention of the Metropolitan police with the introduction of itemised billing and immediate steps were taken to extend call barring of 0898 numbers throughout the force.
  25
  All the major telephone exchanges which serve the Home Office are programmed to bar the use of 0898 numbers. There is a small number of private lines, connected direct to local telephone exchange and cell phones which cannot be barred. Itemised billing has been introduced too recently for any worthwhile figures to be obtained on 0898 costs for these services.

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

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that Metropolitan police expenditure on management and computer consultancy contracts in 1989–90 is estimated to be £1,663,000.

  The following is the list of contracts awarded in 1989:

  Marshall Software Services Ltd.

  Software consultancy to Command and Control Group

  Logica Consultancy Ltd.

  Voice network replacement project

  Gresham Computer Services

  Conversion of mainframe computer from DME language to VME language

  Stonehenge Consultancy Services

  Feasibility study for property management computer system (PREMISYS)

  Digitus Ltd.

  Support to Territorial Operations management information system (TOPSY)

  JMS Telecommunications Ltd.

  Support on development of communications network

  Ron Baker Design Associates

  Consultancy for the design of divisional annual reports

  ICL

  Technical support on hardware and software including installation of new system and super-dualling of two ICL 2988 machines

  Plessey Telenet

  Crime report information system

  MFT

  Consultancy on finance systems

  PTC Communications Ltd.

  Consultancy on traffic tickets systems

  Geoff Ford

  Consultancy on Mechnical and Electrical Branch cost information systems

  Gibb

  Consultancy on payroll system

HEALTH

  Milk Tokens
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many firms supplying liquid milk against welfare tokens have indicated that they no longer intend to participate in the scheme after the changes proposed by his Department; and what proposals he is making to ensure that beneficiaries do not suffer.

  Mr. Freeman
  A total of 115 out of a total of 17,000 suppliers have indicated an intention to cease participation 26
  in the scheme. However, very few beneficiaries have reported that their normal supplier has refused to accept tokens. Local social security offices are able to offer advice about alternative suppliers. Where, exceptionally, the local office is satisfied that a token cannot be exchanged for milk a beneficiary can receive a payment in lieu.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions will be made for people with disabilities in self-governing trust hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under the Bill proposals, district health authorities will be responsible for planning and securing through contracts a comprehensive range of services, which will include services for people with disabilities, to meet the health care needs of their population. In doing this they will contract with a range of service providers, including NHS trusts.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what application the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 will have to people with disabilities in self-governing trust hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  National Health Service trusts will remain an integral part of the NHS and will accordingly remain subject to a range of legislation which applies to NHS facilities.

  Nurses
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many regrading appeals for nurses remain outstanding in each regional health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information concerning appeals to employing authorities in England is not collected centrally.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report the different kinds of conversion courses currently available to nurses within the National Health Service in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has approved courses to enable enrolled nurses to convert to being registered general nurses, registered mental nurses, registered nurses in mental handicap, first level nurses trained in the nursing of sick children, and registered general nurses and district nurse (joint qualification). Individual courses approved by the board can vary in a number of respects. Increased use is being made of distance and open learning approaches. Recognition of prior learning can mean that the traditional 52-week conversion course can be reduced in length to as little as 26 weeks.

  The hon. Member may wish to approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the position in Wales.

  Therapy
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified (1) speech therapists, (2) physiotherapists and (3) occupational therapists are employed centrally by his Department; and in each category what are the numbers employed in the National Health Service.
  27
  Mr. Freeman
  The Department currently employs one speech therapy officer, two physiotherapy officers and two occupational therapy officers, all full-time. The speech therapy officer and one physiotherapy officer are on secondment from the National Health Service. One occupational therapy officer is on secondment from a local authority. The table shows the whole-time equivalents of qualified therapists employed in the National Health Service at 30 September 1988, the latest date for which figures are available:

  Number

  Physiotherapists

  9,590

  Occupational therapists

  4,870

  Speech therapists

  2,730

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the number of qualified speech therapists employed centrally by his Department to oversee policy designed to overcome the gap between the 20·5 speech therapists (whole-time equivalents) per 100,000 population required if current methods of intervention were maintained and assistants were used, and the 5·7 national average figure per 100,000 now available.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The Department's speech therapy officer is already actively working with other officials to consider the problem of matching the supply and demand for speech therapy. I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 26 March at column 46.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the duties of the therapy officers employed by his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  The duties of the therapy officers are to provide advice and support to Ministers and to other officials on matters concerned with all aspects of policy for the development of therapy services, including education and employment, in the National Health Service, local government and the voluntary and private sectors, to assist in taking forward policies relating to these services, and to liaise with professional bodies and other relevant organisations and services.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the review of the functions of therapy officers; and if he will state the objectives of the review.

  Mr. Freeman
  The objectives of the review are set out in the terms of reference which are as follows:

  (a) to review the value and costs of the service provided to the Department by the therapy officers;

  (b) to consider other models for the provision of advice on therapy matters to the Department;

  (c) to advise on whether the present arrangements constitute the most effective use of resources for the provision of this advice;

  (d) if not, to advise on whether an alternative model or models would be more effective, and if so which, and

  (e) without prejudice to the consideration of other models, to review the budgetary and management arrangements for therapy officers employed by the Department, and to make recommendations.

  Apart from the letter which the right hon. Member sent my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on 29 March we have received no representations about the review.

  Access to Ministers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if (1) the therapy officers, (2) the chief medical officer and (3) the chief nursing officer in his Department have direct access to him.

  Mr. Freeman
  Therapy officers give advice on a wide range of professional issues to policy branches which take it into account as appropriate in offering advice to Ministers. The chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer have direct access to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

  Health Reform Group
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) of 20 February,Official Report, column 695, what is the Health Reform Group; and who are its members.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Health Reform Group is an independent group of medical practitioners who support the Government's proposals to improve the Health Service. We have no details of its membership.

  Awards
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost of running his Department's office of the central committee on distinction awards.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The total cost for the year ended 31 March 1989 (the latest available) was £131,188. This figure was made up as follows: Department of Health staff costs £81,684, committee members' expenses £32,954 and salaries of the chairman and vice-chairman of the advisory committee on distinction awards £16,550.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used when making hospital consultants merit awards.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no formal criteria for awards. The chairman of the advisory committee on distinction awards issued general guidelines to members of the regional and higher awards committees this year and a copy has been placed in the Library. The committees look for qualities such as clinical excellence, special achievement in direct services to patients, training, teaching and research and outstanding management effort.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will publish the number of holders of hospital consultants' merit awards in each district health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department does not maintain statistics on distinction awards in each district health authority.

  Drug Budgets
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to issue the further working paper on the implementation of indicative drug budgets to which he referred in his answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, South of 30 January,Official Report, column 130.
  29
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We intend to publish in May a further working paper on the operation of the indicative prescribing scheme.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how soon after the month end the monthly statement on prescribing costs will be issued to general practitioner practices, family practitioner committees and regional health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Monthly statements of expenditure on drugs, medicines and listed appliances prescribed by general practitioners will normally be issued at all levels within four weeks of the end of the month in which the costs were incurred.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much he estimates it will cost his Department in the current financial year for payments that arise from claims of compensation for medical negligence.

  Mr. Freeman
  For 1990–91 the cost of payments in compensation for medical negligence by hospital doctors is estimated at £50 million for the United Kingdom. Not all of this will be met by health authorities. On 1 January 1990 the financial responsibility for this compensation was transferred from the medical defence organisations to the National Health Service. Because hospital doctors in the National Health Service are no longer required to subscribe to a medical defence organisation, English health authorities have about £27 million (£34 million United Kingdom) available in 1990–91 from the contributions made by them as employers to doctors' subscriptions.

  In addition, under the arrangements for the transfer of financial responsibility the medical defence organisations have set up funds from their reserves which health authorities can draw on to help meet the cost of the more substantial cases which should enable the cost to be kept within the original provision for subscriptions.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many brain-damaged children have been awarded compensation for medical negligence in the past five years; what has been the average size of award in each year: and what have been the highest and lowest awards.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available centrally.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the most recent available figures for average general practitioner list sizes; and what steps are being taken to have more up-to-date figures available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information provided by family practitioner committees (FPCs) in census returns enable the Department to calculate average list sizes.

  The average general practitioner list size for England at 1 October 1988 (the latest available) was 1,999.

  From 1 April 1990 all family practitioner committees will have computer systems for general practitioner payments. The intention is that the Department's information requirements will be taken directly from these rather than from manual returns as currently.
  30
  It is expected that this will lead to more timely submission of data for the 1 October 1990 census and beyond.

  Dead Register
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the dead register currently maintained by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Freeman
  The dead register consists of more than 80 million index cards stored by local authority area. These cards relate to people who changed address, left the country, died or changed name during the period of national registration between 1939 and 1952. The space needed for computerisation of the National Health Service central register has necessitated moving the dead register away from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys site and it is now costing nearly £50,000 per annum in storage.

  The main usage is for medical research studies and currently there are very few users. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys considers that it is unnecessary to maintain the dead register for its own core needs and has approached the Medical Research Council about the need to maintain it for medical research purposes. In the event that this is considered necessary the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys would need payment. A decision is required by the summer when the renewal of the storage contract is due.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the final cost to each regional health authority of cover using police and armed forces and other bodies during the ambulance workers' dispute; and what was the total cost to public funds of the dispute.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of his latest estimate of the total costs arising out of the recent ambulance dispute; and how much has been(a) paid and (b) requested from authorities responsible for providing (i) military, (ii) police and (iii) non-NHS ambulance services during the period of the dispute.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cost to the end of February 1990 (the last month for which bills have been received from the Ministry of Defence) was £4·.8 million. The final cost of military assistance is not yet known.

  Information is not held centrally about the cost to regional health authorities of using police and other non-military bodies during the recent dispute.

  Defensive Medicine
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken on defensive medicine in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. The introduction of medical audit will ensure that doctors examine the nature and appropriateness of the care that they provide.

  General Practitioners, Cumbria
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the decision of the Cumbria family practitioner committee to allow the general practitioner
  31
  practice of Dickinson, Wheeler and Reed specifically to exclude the area Raffles, and Raffles in Carlisle, from their practice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. I understand that the practice concerned is in Dalston and some distance from Carlisle in a rural area. This practice has never encouraged people from the urban area to register with it. There are in fact some 40 doctors serving the population of Carlisle, including the two estates.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Uganda
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid, and in what form, was given by Her Majesty's Government to Uganda for each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Gross British bilateral aid to Uganda over the period 1984–88, the latest five-year period for which figures are available, was as follows:

  £ millions

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Programme aid

  1·126

  0·206

  0·005

  0·016

  17·126

  Other financial aid

  0·474

  2·123

  1·524

  2·980

  2·941

  Technical assistance

  2·701

  2·867

  2·784

  3·510

  6·392

  Pensions

  0·939

  0·896

  0·852

  1·996

  0·354

  Emergency aid

  0·173

  0·244

  1·056

  0·070

  0·436

  Debt relief

  1·667

  1·660

  1·166

  0·983

  0·631

  Commonwealth Development

  Corporation

  1·175

  1·189

  2·624

  0·710

  Total

  7·080

  9·171

  8·576

  12·179

  28·590

  In addition, Britain's share of multilateral aid to Uganda over the period 1984–87 was:

  £ millions

  1984

  8·58

  1985

  7·70

  1986

  5·31

  1987

  9·11

  Figures for later years are not yet available.

  Grassland Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects he will be able to make a statement on the outcome of the Minister for Overseas Development's contacts with Professor Hall about grassland research.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My officials will be holding discussions with Professor Hall and other interested parties such as the Natural Resources Institute during the next six weeks. I will therefore be writing to the hon. Member at the end of May, by when we should know the position.

  Caribbean
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of assistance given to islands in the Caribbean.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [pursuant to her reply, 2 April 1990, c. 418]: I regret that the reply that I gave my hon. Friend
  32
  omitted the separate but substantial sums provided to Jamaica through the Commonwealth Development Corporation. In 1988 these amounted to £14·647 million.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Lancashire Estates (Income)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the principal determining factors which affect the income of the estates for which he is responsible in Lancashire.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The factors which affect the income of the estates are, in general, those affecting the agricultural economy. Most of the farms are dairy units and I am pleased to say that the farmers concerned have adapted well to the regime of milk quotas.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from tenants of the Duchy regarding the community charge.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have had no representations from Duchy tenants either for or against the community charge.

  Visits
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to pay an offical visit to the Duchy.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have no plans to do so in the very near future.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to visit St. Helens.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have no plans to visit St. Helens at present.

  Official Duties
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much time he has spent on Duchy business since the last time he answered oral questions.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I spend up to a quarter of my time carrying out my duties as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and as a member of the Government.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Guillotines
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when guillotines were first introduced on Lords amendments; and if he will list all such guillotines and supplemental guillotines since 1979.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The first occasion on which an allocation of time order governing consideration of Lords amendments was made was on 27 April 1953, when a supplemental order guillotining debate on Lords amendments to the Transport Bill was agreed to.

  The following allocation of time orders relating to consideration of Lords amendments have been made since the beginning of the 1979–80 Session:
  33

  Session

  Bill

  Date

  Type of order

  1979–80

  Education (No. 2)

  2 April 1980

  Supplemental

  Social Security

  22 May 1980

  Supplemental

  Housing

  6 August 1980

  Supplemental

  1980–81

  Transport

  28 July 1981

  Supplemental

  British Nationality

  26 October 1981

  Supplemental

  1981–82

  Oil and Gas (Enterprise)

  24 June 1982

  Supplemental

  Employment

  25 October 1982

  Supplemental

  1984–85

  Local Government

  8 July 1985

  Supplemental

  Transport

  29 October 1985

  Supplemental

  1985–86

  Gas

  21 July 1986

  Supplemental

  Social Security

  23 July 1986

  Supplemental

  1986–87

  Local Government Finance

  11 March 1987

  Supplemental

  Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland)

  13 May 1987

  Supplemental

  1987–88

  Social Security

  14 March 1988

  Free-standing

  Education Reform

  18 July 1988

  Supplemental

  Local Government Finance

  20 July 1988

  Supplemental

  Firearms (Amendment)

  2 November 1988 11 November 1988

  Supplemental Free-standing (one order covering 2 bills)

  School Boards (Scotland) Housing

  1988–89

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)

  14 March 1989

  Supplemental

  Official Secrets

  2 May 1989

  Supplemental

  Water

  3 July 1989

  Supplemental

  Local Government and Housing

  8 November 1989

  Free-standing (one order covering 2 bills)

  Employment

  Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland)

  14 November 1989

  Supplemental

  1989–90 (up to and including 18 April 1990)

  Education (Student Loans)

  4 April 1990

  Free-standing

  Sound System
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will make a statement on the sound system in the House.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  During recent months, I have received a number of representations from hon. and right hon. Members about the quality of the sound in the Chamber and the matter has also been raised several times on the Floor of the House.

  The sound system in the Chamber has been under review for the last 10 years, originally under the aegis of the former Sound Broadcasting Committee. The Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House inherited the responsibilities of the Sound Broadcasting Committee and has continued to keep the issue under active consideration. When the Select Committee came into being in 1988 it was decided that, although there might be doubts about the efficiency of the sound system, there should be no attempt to make significant changes either for or during the television experiment. The sound system in the Chamber at present is, therefore, almost exactly the same and works under exactly the same system of operation as it has done for more than five years.

  There were complaints earlier this year that micro-phones at the Dispatch Box were not providing a good signal of the Front-Bench speakers. A series of experiments were undertaken with different microphones at the Dispatch Box and new placings of the microphones above the Government and Opposition Front-Bench speakers. The present microphones and their placings,
  34
  designed to overcome the loss of audibility when Front-Bench speakers turn to address Members behind them, provide the best combination so far.

  There have also been complaints about the quality of reception in the small loudspeakers in the back of the Benches. The level of amplification has not, as had been suggested, been lowered to suit the demands of broadcasting. In fact the level of sound has been raised as far as possible without causing feedback but it is clear that some Members still have difficulty in hearing when there is a lot of noise in the Chamber. During the Easter recess, therefore, an inspection was carried out with the support of the BBC research department to evaluate the extent to which the existing amplification equipment is performing to its original specifications and to identify possible alternative systems for later tests.

  This work is part of a study being undertaken by a working party under the chairmanship of the supervisor of broadcasting. The working party is examining the technical options for the modernisation or replacement of the sound system. In addition, Mr. Richard Wright, head of sound operations for news and current affairs at the BBC, has been appointed as a specialist adviser to the Select Committee and will also assist the working party in its deliberations. The working party will report to the Chairman of the Select Committee by early June. As a separate issue, the working party will also address the question of sound quality in Committee Rooms.

  However, the general conclusion likely to be reached is that the sound system, which was installed several decades ago, is unlikely to have an effective life beyond the next five

  35
  years. Given the inevitably long lead-time associated with drawing up the specifications and costings for a new system, and with approval by the House and installation, it is vital that work should begin now.

  The first practical steps towards identifying the tecnnical options have already been taken, with the recent installation on the Opposition side of the Chamber of a single new type of smaller "capacitator" microphone. This has produced good results in terms of audibility, although a problem of reduced physical stability needs further work.

  It is, however, important to stress that the constraints of the layout and architecture of the Chamber will always limit the scope for improvement in audibility. The simultaneous requirement for the House to be able to hear the Member with the Floor speaking at a normal volume, whilst avoiding undue distraction from the inevitable background noise in a lively debating Chamber, is likely to stretch even the most up-to-date technology to its limits. When the House is very noisy only a system of individual microphones and individual hearing aids would be able to cope; and this, it has always been understood, would be unacceptable to the House.

  The overriding concern of the Select Committee will be to ensure that the House is equipped with as efficient a system of sound reinforcement as possible, subject only to the practical constraints I have outlined.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Widows' Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many widows in Scotland are in receipt of widows' benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As at 31 March 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of widows in Scotland in receipt of widow's benefit was 39,000.

  Local Government Finance (Rebates)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were receiving(a) domestic rates and (b) poll tax rebates in Scotland in each year from 1986–87; and if he will express the figures as a percentage of total domestic ratepayers or poll tax payers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is in the table.

  Numbers receiving rate rebates (000s)

  Proportion of housing stock per cent.

  1986–87

  785

  38

  1987–88

  785

  38

  1988–89

  640

  31

  Number of individual chargepayers receiving rebates (000s)

  Proportion of registered chargepayers per cent.

  1989–90

  1,150

  30

  Source: Estimated number of recipients derived from local authority rate rebate and community charge benefit caseload returns. Housing stock figures and community charge register information from Scottish Office.
  36
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a table for the following household types:(a) single pensioner, (b) other single adult, (c) two adults, (d) three or more adults and (e) all households listing the following detail: (i) the number receiving rate bills, (ii) the total value of their gross rate bills, (iii) the numbers entitled to rebates and (iv) the total value of rebates in 1987–88 and 1988–89 in Scotland.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [pursuant to her reply, 19 March 1990, c. 402]: I regret that a correction is necessary. The estimated number of ratepayers in Scotland receiving rate rebates in 1988–89 is 640,000 and not 688,000 as shown in the published table.

  Disability
  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 Disability Alliance; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has given any consideration to the introduction of a basic minimum income for all disabled people, irrespective of how their disability arose: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  There is a number of factors which have led us to conclude that a single disability income scheme is not the right course of action. First, we have aimed to provide a more simple and coherent system of financial help for disabled people. A single scheme which strived to cover a whole range of specific needs would be significantly more complicated than existing benefits, both for claimants to understand and for doctors and staff to adjudicate and administer. Secondly, by introducing the sort of points-related benefit suggested by some commentators, an unacceptably high number of people would stand to lose benefit entitlement. One of our major objectives is to provide a system which can get help quickly and effectively to those most in need.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many elderly persons in private residential or nursing homes who are in receipt of income support have fees which are below the income support limits by:(a) less than £5 a week, (b) £5 to £10 per week, (c) £10 to £20 per week, (d) £20 to £30 per week, (e) £30 to £40 per week, (f) £40 to £50 per week, (g) £50 to £60 per week, (h) £60 to £70 per week, (i) £70 to £80 per week, and (j) over £80 per week; what percentage each of these totals is of (i) all elderly residents in these houses and (ii) all residents in receipt of income support; and if he will provide information so far as possible broken down between residential and nursing homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available. Data is collected on a sample basis, the size of which precludes the provision of reliable estimates in the form requested.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of claims submitted on vibration white finger to the two local Birkenhead offices; and if he will detail the number of staff hours so far involved in processing these claims.

  Mr. Scott
  A total of 1,141 new claims and 835 review applications have been received to date by the two social security offices serving the Birkenhead area. Details of staff hours expended on these particular claims are not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each county in Wales, the number of surplus places in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and if he will give details of the criteria he uses to ascertain surplus place numbers.

  Mr. Roberts
  The table shows the total number of surplus places in primary and secondary schools in each county based on the latest available figures received from each local education authority. The criteria recommended for determining the capacities of schools are set out in Welsh Office circular 20/88, "Educational Quality in Wales: The Response to Falling School Rolls" for primary schools, whilst for secondary schools they are in Welsh Office circular 47/88, "Admission of Pupils to County and Voluntary Schools". Copies of both circulars are in the Library of the House.

  Surplus Places in Maintained Schools in Wales

  County

  Primary

  Secondary

  TOTAL

  Clwyd

  9,964

  2,493

  12,907

  Dyfed

  9,671

  1,949

  11,620

  Gwent

  11,159

  9,836

  20,696

  Gwynedd

  4,928

  3,834

  8,762

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,683

  4,274

  13,957

  Powys

  3,194

  2,525

  5,719

  South Glamorgan

  6,996

  6,935

  13,929

  West Glamorgan

  2,021

  11,218

  13,239

  Wales

  57,616

  43,212

  100,828

  Orthodontic Surgeons
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those health authorities in Wales which employ the services of an orthodontic consultant surgeon.

  Mr. Grist
  All district health authorities in Wales employ the services of an orthodontic consultant surgeon.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received, since occupying his present post, on the effect on new investment of high interest rates.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Although precise figures are not available, I have received very few representations about the effect of interest rates on new investment.

  Health Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners and general practitioner practices in each county in Wales have indicated an interest in becoming holders of a practice budget.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Family practitioner committee

  Number of general practitioners

  Number of GP practices

  Clwyd

  34

  6

  Dyfed

  27

  6

  Gwent

  12

  3

  Gwynedd

  4

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  53

  9

  Powys

  14

  3

  South Glamorgan

  26

  5

  West Glamorgan

  47

  9

  FPC areas are co-terminous with counties.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the contribution that will be made by charitable giving and fund-raising towards the deficit projected by the South Glamorgan health authority during 1990–91.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has made no such estimates. He would not expect the authority to rely upon donations to meet any part of the deficit which it is currently projecting, since it would clearly be unwise to become dependent upon a source of funding which may not be recurrent. Donations can be of considerable assistance in funding developments which might not otherwise be given priority by the authority within its modified revenue and capital allocations. However, they should not be used in substitution for firm budgetary control.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the extent of the contribution made by charitable donations and fund-raising events to the funding of the Health Service in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend and I welcome the voluntary and charitable contributions which members of the public and organisations wish to make to health authorities. Sometimes such gifts are associated with the funding of a specific service or facilities and on other occasions they are not. In each case it is a private matter between the health authority and the giver. Such arrangements are not covered by any central guidelines and have not been the subject of departmental initiative.

  In determining health authority spending allocations voluntary funding and charitable donations are not considered and no central record of such gifts is maintained.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cattle have been confirmed as having bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each county of Wales for each year since the disease was discovered.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each county in Wales during 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 (to 13 April) was:
  39

  Number of cases

  County

  1987

  1988

  1989

  11990

  Clwyd

  0

  13

  58

  31

  Dyfed

  8

  64

  212

  111

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  5

  15

  3

  South Glamorgan

  0

  8

  29

  3

  West Glamorgan

  0

  1

  3

  0

  Gwent

  0

  20

  60

  32

  Gwynedd

  0

  7

  26

  8

  Powys

  0

  13

  56

  31

  1 (to 13 April).

  There were no cases reported in 1986.

  Pounds per head in 1990–911

  Local Authority

  Net expenditure2

  Standard spending assessment

  Income from community charge3

  Revenue support grant

  Non-domestic rates share

  Other income4

  Alyn and Deeside

  127

  123

  30

  64

  32

  102

  Colwyn

  129

  120

  36

  61

  32

  182

  Delyn

  132

  113

  38

  54

  32

  329

  Glyndwr

  130

  111

  50

  52

  32

  305

  Rhuddlan

  153

  130

  50

  71

  32

  302

  Wrexham Maelor

  133

  124

  37

  65

  32

  266

  Carmarthen

  111

  126

  10

  67

  32

  n/a

  Ceredigion

  139

  134

  16

  75

  32

  n/a

  Dinefwr

  108

  118

  17

  59

  32

  n/a

  Llanelli

  138

  143

  30

  82

  32

  n/a

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  133

  131

  16

  72

  32

  246

  South Pembrokeshire

  123

  143

  7

  84

  32

  381

  Blaenau Gwent

  204

  168

  51

  109

  32

  579

  Islwyn

  169

  158

  38

  99

  32

  189

  Monmouth

  124

  110

  36

  51

  32

  298

  Newport

  173

  162

  61

  100

  32

  467

  Torfaen

  154

  141

  40

  82

  32

  163

  Aberconwy

  149

  127

  49

  68

  32

  219

  Arfon

  163

  147

  43

  88

  32

  250

  Dwyfor

  180

  155

  59

  96

  32

  250

  Meirionnydd

  173

  134

  57

  75

  32

  229

  Ynys Môn

  194

  140

  75

  81

  32

  437

  Cynon Valley

  186

  170

  42

  108

  32

  168

  Merthyr Tydfil

  194

  187

  36

  126

  32

  547

  Ogwr

  158

  142

  43

  83

  32

  200

  Rhondda

  224

  199

  41

  138

  32

  504

  Rhymney Valley

  160

  138

  47

  78

  32

  n/a

  Taff Ely

  138

  141

  24

  82

  32

  n/a

  Brecknock

  131

  126

  35

  67

  32

  228

  Montgomeryshire

  128

  113

  18

  54

  32

  198

  Radnorshire

  111

  113

  25

  54

  32

  270

  Cardiff

  191

  143

  75

  84

  32

  272

  Vale of Glamorgan

  119

  123

  23

  64

  32

  n/a

  Port Talbot

  163

  159

  31

  100

  32

  170

  Lliw Valley

  118

  126

  19

  67

  32

  n/a

  Neath

  196

  138

  21

  79

  32

  369

  Swansea

  205

  174

  48

  115

  32

  301

  Clwyd

  764

  703

  213

  387

  171

  205

  Dyfed

  779

  756

  168

  440

  171

  167

  Gwent

  755

  731

  169

  416

  171

  227

  Gwynedd

  769

  752

  161

  436

  171

  282

  Mid Glamorgan

  807

  786

  166

  471

  171

  229

  Powys

  842

  838

  146

  522

  171

  n/a

  South Glamorgan

  789

  772

  167

  456

  171

  184

  West Glamorgan

  802

  750

  205

  434

  171

  191

  Average Wales

  944

  897

  218

  521

  203

  n/a

  1 For consistency, the population denominator used throughout the table is the relevant population. This is defined in the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales. Note that this definition excludes those aged under 18 years.

  2 Provisional budgeted net revenue expenditure as reported by local authorities.

  3 In the case of districts, the transfer from the collection fund; in the case of counties, the aggregate of precepts on the relevant charging authorities' collection funds.

  4 The provisional estimated income from specific and supplementary grants and from sales, fees, charges and other income. Note that these amounts are not included in net expenditure.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report in relation to each local authority in Wales and the average for all local authorities in Wales for the financial year 1990–91 (a) the level of net expenditure per head of population, (b) the level of net expenditure per head of population as set out in the Government's assessment of expenditure need, (c) the level of income per head of population from personal, standard and collective community charges, (d) the income from revenue support grant per head of population, (e) the income from non-domestic rates per head of population and (f) the income from other sources per head of population.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Flooding
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what action he intends to take to avert flooding in the reenlands of south Gwent;

  (2) if he will calculate the likelihood of a major flood in the Peterstone-Wentlooge and St. Brides areas of Gwent in the event of a tidal surge;

  (3) what reports he has received of the overtopping of the sea defences in south Gwent, and the flooding in Newport and Caerleon during the recent storms; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will make an assessment of the expected rise in sea levels in the Severn estuary as a result of global warming and its effect on sea and river defences;

  (5) whether he has received any representations from the National Rivers Authority and other bodies on action that may be required to improve the sea walls in the Peterstone-Wentlooge and St. Brides areas of Gwent to reduce the risk of flooding.

  Mr. Grist
  There will always be some risk of a major flood in the Peterstone-Wentlooge and St. Brides areas of Gwent during extreme events.

  Under section 136 of the Water Act 1989 the National Rivers Authority has a duty to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence. The Department is aware that overtopping of sea defences occurred in south Gwent and that there was flooding in Newport and Caerleon during the recent storms. No representations have been received on action that may be required to improve sea walls in the area specified.

  Current estimates suggest that mean sea levels are likely to be between 25 and 40 cm higher by the year 2050. It is not possible to establish with any degree of certainty the degree of sea level rise on a local basis. The increased funding that is being provided by the Department for sea defence schemes is intended to build up the programme to enable defences to withstand the currently expected risk.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from the National Farmers Union of Wales in respect of the operation and level of payments of the ESA scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cambodia
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is yet in a position to publish the report resulting from the recent United Kingdom mission investigating the political situation in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 31 January.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position relating to arms sales to Iraq; what agreements or treaties prohibit such exports; and what routine measures are taken to enforce compliance by British manufacturers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Exports of defence-related material to both Iran and Iraq are governed by the guidelines announced by the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the House on 29 October 1985. These are applied on a case-by-case basis in the light of prevailing circumstances, including the ceasefire and developments in the peace negotiations. Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty we control the export of sensitive nuclear-related material and technology. As a member of the missile technology control regime, we control exports of missile-related material and technology. Our export controls are implemented under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. All export licence applications are given the most careful scrutiny.

  Libya
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of the capability of the Rabta chemical plant in Libya to produce chemical warfare agents.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no doubt that the Rabta plant is intended to produce chemical weapons on a large scale. It remains unclear what has been the effect of the reported fire on 14 March.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  The channel tunnel is a private sector project. I understand that more than 40 per cent. of tunnelling has been completed and is now progressing at record levels.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rate of return he expects will be secured by British Rail on its investment to be undertaken as a result of the prospective opening of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  The real rate of return on British Rail's investment for channel tunnel services is expected to be at least 8 per cent.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the channel tunnel link and the site of the second London terminal.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has received a large number of such representations.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received regarding channel tunnel links with Cornwall.
  43
  Mr. Portillo
  I have received a number of representations about channel tunnel links with Cornwall.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what evacuation procedures Eurotunnel has designed to ensure that people who have impaired hearing or impaired eyesight can be quickly evacuated in the event of fire;

  (2) what tests there have been to examine the effects of a high-speed derailment in the channel tunnel;

  (3) what consideration he has given to the conclusions of the intergovernmental commission and the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority on segregation of passengers from light vehicles, passenger cars and coaches from LPG;

  (4) if he has any plans to increase the time fire doors on the shuttle rakes are required to resist fire to match the time Eurotunnel is given to rescue passengers from a train stranded in the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he has set any criteria for the numbers of drivers required to be present at all times on the two locomotives with which each train using the channel tunnel is to be equipped;

  (6) how many evacuees from a carriage carrying passengers not segregated from their vehicles a neighbouring carriage with 50 cm between each vehicle in it could accommodate; and what projections he has made of how long it would take to transfer the passengers from one carriage to another in such circumstances;

  (7) what criteria he has laid down for the time taken to evacuate a large coach full of people in smoke; whether he has any plans to vary the criteria where large numbers of elderly or handicapped people are carried; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) what reports his Department has studied into the effects of a high-speed derailment in the channel tunnel and the safety of passengers travelling in train carriages and the safety of passengers travelling in their cars with full fuel tanks;

  (9) if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority's report "Non-segregation of Drivers and Passengers from their Vehicles";

  (10) if the service tunnel of the channel tunnel will be able to be used to evacuate passengers safely at the same time as it is being used to deploy rescue teams and emergency services to the scene of an incident.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr Vaz) on 8 January,Official Report, column 464, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr Warren) on 22 January, Official Report, column 491.

  Approval of Eurotunnel's proposed designs and operating procedures is a matter for the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission which is advised on safety matters by the independent Channel Tunnel Safety Authority.

  The safety authority has now published its report reviewing the principal factors on which it based its advice to the intergovernmental commission on the non-segregation of drivers and passengers from their vehicles. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The report refers to the authority's view that drivers and passengers should not be allowed to travel in vehicles containing or carrying LPG. With regard to the effects of a high-speed derailment in the tunnel, the report records
  44
  the authority's stipulation that Eurotunnel should carry out a special study of the behaviour of rolling stock under accident conditions. I understand that the authority is discussing with Eurotunnel the exact nature of the further tests required.

  Eurotunnel's operating rules will have to cover matters such as the number of train drivers required to be present on the locomotives and the evacuation procedures for passengers, including the elderly and those with disabilities. Under the concession agreement, Eurotunnel is required to submit these rules for intergovernmental commission approval. When it does so, it will be for the safety authority to advise on whether the proposals are acceptable. Section 19 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 requires Eurotunnel to obtain from the intergovernmental commission a certificate stating that the commission is satisfied with Eurotunnel's code of practice on the conveyance of disabled persons.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to receive from British Rail its investment proposals for the trains to be used for the through passenger services to be introduced from the continent to the north of Britain.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that negotiations on the price of the trains are continuing and that BR now intends to submit its proposals in the summer.

  Roll on/Roll off Ferries
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes to take powers to require improvements in the design of roll on/roll off ferries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport already has such powers by virtue of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. On 2 April we announced the results of a Department of Transport-sponsored research programme into ways of improving the safety of ro-ro passenger ferries. This work will have significant implications for developments in ferry design throughout the world, and we have already taken steps to ensure its full consideration at the International Maritime Organisation next month.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans any further measures to promote improved access to means of transport by disabled people.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our plans are set out comprehensively in the document, "Transport and Disability: a Statement of Aims and Priorities".

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve transport facilities for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our plans are set out in "Transport and Disability: a Statement of Aims and Priorities".

  We are seeking to make public transport easier to use including development of wheelchair access. We are working with vehicle designers and manufacturers to influence car design and control modifications, so as to increase opportunities for personal mobility for even the most severely disabled people.
  45
  We are also developing guidelines on design for pedestrian areas to help elderly and disabled people.

  Electrification
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received for further electrification of the British Rail network.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the last two years alone, we have approved a further four electrification schemes for British Rail. We would welcome any further proposals from British Rail which meet its investment criteria.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost of electrifying the east coast rail line north of Edinburgh.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is for British Rail to estimate the cost of any electrification schemes which it wishes to propose.

  Traffic Congestion (London)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he now intends to spend the £3·7 billion allocated to the road building plans for London on measures which will help to reduce congestion in the capital.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No financial provision was made for schemes recommended by consultants, so their rejection does not make funds available to spend on other measures. Investment of more than £6 billion is already planned to improve the transport systems that serve London.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement about his plans to reduce the current levels of traffic congestion in central London.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are planning to start a red route pilot scheme from Highgate to Commercial road in the summer. Discussions with the local authorities are under way and there will be consultation with residents and traders. We shall also be consulting on the legislation to implement the proposals in "Traffic in London", which will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the introduction of traffic-calming measures in London.

  Mr. Atkins
  Traffic-calming measures in London are most appropriate to local roads, which are the responsibility of the local authorities. My Department will consider grant where there are safety benefits. We will be discussing with the authorities concerned any proposals they may have for appropriate measures associated with red routes and the modest trunk road improvements we are proposing following consultation on the London assessment studies.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about investment in London Regional Transport since 1986.

  Mr. Portillo
  Investment by London Regional Transport has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1985–86 to £425 million in 1989–90. Over the next three years it will double again.
  46
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set performance targets for the standard of service offered by London Regional Transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have already done so. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 20 December at column 280.

  Horne Report
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received seeking early implementation of the Home report.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have received many representations from hon. Members and others seeking implementation of the Horne report's recommendations for control of public utilities' street works.

  MV Marine
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the marine accident investigation branch has yet received a copy of the Bahamian authorities' report into the loss of the MV Marine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine accident investigation branch has not yet received a copy of the Bahamian authorities' report into the loss of the MV Marine. The sad loss of this vessel, and her six British crew, was debated in this House on 27 March in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).

  Newcastle Western Bypass
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the next stage of the Newcastle western bypass to open.

  Mr. Atkins
  On current planning the next stage of the bypass is due for completion in October 1990.

  Midland Railway Line
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the British Railways Board about investment in the midland St. Pancras-Sheffield railway line.

  Mr. Portillo
  Whilst we have not had any recent discussions with British Rail on this, I know that British Rail will be providing faster trains in the new May timetable and we would be happy to see any further investment proposals which British Rail considers worth while.

  British Rail (Meetings)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I next plan to meet the chairman of British Rail on Wednesday 25 April when we shall discuss a variety of railway issues.
  47
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Rail on 19 April when they discussed a variety of railway issues.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) earlier today.

  British Rail Engineering
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made to clawback any of the profit made by the British Rail Engineering Company following its privatisation.
  48
  Mr. Portillo
  The claw-back provision agreed between British Rail and the purchasers applies to profits made in the medium term from the sale or development of BREL land.

  Langbaurgh (Roads)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Cleveland county council on roads in Langbaurgh, in particular the Guisborough bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  Officials of the Department and Cleveland county council regularly meet to discuss the road network improvement programme in the county. The Guisborough bypass is one of the county council schemes which is raised for discussion from time to time.

  Transport Investment Policy
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the amount of Government money to be invested in each form of transport over the next three years in order to achieve the stated aim of a balanced transport policy.

  Mr. Parkinson
  During the next three years, investment in transport by my Department and the nationalised industries for which I am responsible will come to £11·5 billion and plans would support some £2·5 billion by English local authorities. About £7 billion will be invested in rail, bus, air and ports and some £7 billion on roads if local authorities' present allocation between modes continues.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to Manchester airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend visited Manchester airport in February. He and I have also met airport company directors on a number of occasions.

  London Underground
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of London Underground Ltd. to discuss improvements promised for the Metropolitan line.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the chairman of London Underground Limited to discuss various matters, including service improvements. Improvements being considered by LUL for the Metropolitan line include the modernisation of rolling stock, resignalling and a new train reversing facility at Moorgate, to provide greater flexibility and speed of response to unforeseen service difficulties. From 14 May, services from Amersham and Uxbridge will run to the City all day, rather than just at peak times as at present. The quality of service objectives set by my right hon. Friend on 20 December 1989 are designed to ensure that passengers on all lines get the best service that London Underground can provide.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of London Underground; and whether he will be discussing matters of safety.

  Mr. Portillo
  I meet the chairman regularly. Safety is the top priority and can be discussed at any time either at or outside our regular meetings.

  London (Buses)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to increase the use of buses in London.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government believe that the use of buses in London will increase only if bus operators are able to offer improved standards of service. Our goal is to create an environment in which operators have the ability and the incentive to raise standards of service. Our policy of promoting competition in the London bus market, the quality of service objectives which we have set for LRT bus services and the proposals in "Traffic in London" are all intended to further this goal.

  Third Party Insurance
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what administrative and legislative measures he proposes to take to reduce the number of vehicles being driven without third party insurance cover.

  Mr. Atkins
  Enforcement of motor insurance law is for the police, who have wide powers to inspect drivers' insurance certificates. We have no plans to change current legislation or administrative procedures.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of Government financial support for regional airports for the current financial year and for the previous year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department authorised borrowing totalling £29 million in 1989–90 for the development of facilities at local authority airports. For 1990–91 borrowing approvals totalling £59 million will be available. The Department does not pay grant for airport development.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made any estimates of the future growth of passenger traffic in regional airports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's most recent air traffic forecasts for the United Kingdom, published in December 1988, predict that passenger movements at regional airports will be in the following ranges:

  Million passengers per annum

  Number

  1988

  30·9

  1995

  42·1—51·0

  2000

  52·4—68·2

  2005

  62·6—87·4

  The figures indicate that regional airports' share of United Kingdom passenger traffic is expected to increase from 33 per cent. to over 37 per cent. by 2005.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the quality of service provided by Network SouthEast.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend receives many representations about Network SouthEast, the majority of which are about quality of service. He met the Central Transport Consultative Committee on 26 March.

  Breath Tests
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on his policy on the introduction of properly monitored random breath tests for drivers.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced on 21 March (Official Report, c. 635) the Government's view that existing police powers to stop and breath test drivers strike the right balance between effective enforcement of the law and the freedom of the individual.

  We shall continue to encourage the police to make the fullest possible use of the wide breath-testing powers available to them.

  Rail Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet representatives of the trade unions in the rail industry.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

  British Rail (Privatisation)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received supporting the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received a number of such representations.

  M1 (lighting)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the lighting of the northerly sections of the M1 motorway.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) earlier today.

  light Railway Projects
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many light railway projects are planned throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Docklands light railway is being extended to Bank and Beckton, and the Tyne and Wear Metro to Newcastle airport.

  The Government are providing grant for the £110 million Manchester Metrolink which is to be designed, built, operated and maintained by the private sector. This Department is in touch with the promoters of light rail projects in south Yorkshire, Avon, west midlands, Cleveland, Croydon and Nottingham. We are also aware of about 30 other schemes, most at an early stage of consideration.

  Ship Inspections
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he takes to inspect ships not registered in the United Kingdom concerning their compliance with international or recognised insurance requirements; and how many vessels were inspected for this specific purpose, or in the course of other inspections, respectively in 1989.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Secretary of State has no general powers to inspect ships not registered in the United Kingdom regarding the insurance cover they carry. Special provisions apply to oil tankers. The 1969 civil liability convention for oil pollution damage, enacted in the United Kingdom under the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971, requires the Secretary of State to ensure the presence of an appropriate insurance certificate on board vessels which transport oil in bulk. The surveyor general's organisation examines these certificates under its port state control inspection procedure. Customs authorities are similarly charged with inspecting the certificates. There is no available information on how many insurance certificates of non-United Kingdom-registered bulk oil carriers were inspected in 1989, under this procedure.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many drivers of 25 years and under were involved in traffic accidents where death or serious injury occurred for each of the last five years; what percentage were female; and if he will express the figures as a percentage of the total number of drivers involved in such accidents.
  52
  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is given in the tables for the most recent five years for which figures are available. It refers to drivers of all motor vehicles, but excludes riders of two-wheeled motor vehicles.

  Accidents involving drivers aged under 25

  Severity of Accident

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  1984

  Drivers 0–24

  1,735

  19,520

  21,255

  Percentage of all drivers

  25

  26

  26

  Percentage of Drivers 0–24:

  Female

  13

  18

  18

  Male

  87

  81

  82

  1985

  Drivers 0–24

  1,703

  19,173

  20,876

  Percentage of all Drivers

  26

  26

  26

  Percentage of Drivers 0–24:

  Female

  12

  19

  18

  Male

  87

  81

  81

  1986

  Drivers 0–24

  1,790

  19,290

  21,080

  Percentage of all Drivers

  26

  26

  26

  Percentage of Drivers 0–24:

  Female

  14

  19

  19

  Male

  86

  80

  81

  1987

  Drivers 0–24

  1,701

  18,596

  20,297

  Percentage of all Drivers

  25

  26

  26

  Percentage of Drivers 0–24:

  Female

  15

  21

  20

  Male

  85

  79

  79

  1988

  Drivers 0–24

  1,778

  19,286

  21,064

  Percentage of all Drivers

  26

  27

  27

  Percentage of Drivers 0–24:

  Female

  13

  21

  20

  Male

  86

  78

  79

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons under the age of 25 years were killed or seriously injured in traffic accidents for each of the last five years; and if he will express this as a percentage of the total for each category.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is given in the table, for the most recent five years for which figures are available.

  Persons under 25 killed or seriously injured

  Severity of injury

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  1984

  Persons 0–24

  2,256

  40,158

  42,414

  Percentage of all persons

  40

  55

  54

  1985

  Persons 0–24

  2,037

  37,738

  39,775

  Percentage of all persons

  39

  53

  52

  1986

  Persons 0–24

  2,028

  35,590

  37,618

  Percentage of all persons

  38

  52

  51

  1987

  Persons 0–24

  1,931

  32,346

  34,277

  Percentage of all persons

  38

  50

  49

  1988

  Persons 0–24

  1,862

  30,965

  32,827

  Percentage of all persons

  37

  49

  48

  53
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many drivers over the age of(a) 60 and (b) 70 years were involved in accidents where death or serious injury occurred for each of the last five years; and if he will express this as a percentage of the total for each category.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is given in the tables, for the most recent five years for which figures are available. It refers to drivers of all motor vehicles, but excludes riders of two-wheeled motor vehicles.

  Accidents involving drivers over 60

  Severity of accident

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  1984

  Drivers 60 +

  672

  6,240

  6,912

  Percentage of all drivers

  10

  8

  9

  Drivers 70 +

  263

  2,110

  2,373

  Percentage of all drivers

  4

  3

  3

  1985

  Drivers 60 +

  625

  6,159

  6,784

  Percentage of all drivers

  10

  8

  8

  Drivers 70 +

  249

  2,246

  2,495

  Percentage of all drivers

  4

  3

  3

  1986

  Drivers 60 +

  660

  6,011

  6,671

  Percentage of all drivers

  10

  8

  8

  Drivers 70 +

  280

  2,128

  2,408

  Percentage of all drivers

  4

  3

  3

  1987

  Drivers 60 +

  642

  5,515

  6,157

  Percentage of all drivers

  10

  8

  8

  Drivers 70 +

  272

  1,994

  2,266

  Percentage of all drivers

  4

  3

  3

  1988

  Drivers 60 +

  625

  5,847

  6,472

  Percentage of all drivers

  9

  8

  8

  Drivers 70 +

  279

  2,150

  2,429

  Percentage of all drivers

  4

  3

  3

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons over the age of(a) 60 and (b) 70 years were killed or seriously injured in traffic accidents for each of the last five years; and if he will express this as a percentage of the total number of deaths and seriously injured.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is given in the table, for the most recent five years for which figures are available.

  Persons over 60 killed or seriously injured

  Severity of injury

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  1984

  Persons 60 +

  1,466

  8,559

  10,025

  Percentage of all persons

  26

  12

  13

  Persons 70 +

  987

  4,685

  5,672

  Percentage of all persons

  18

  6

  7

  1985

  Persons 60 +

  1,411

  8,439

  9,850

  Percentage of all persons

  27

  12

  13

  Persons 70 +

  923

  4,568

  5,491

  Percentage of all persons

  18

  6

  7

  1986

  Persons 60 +

  1,491

  8,526

  10,017

  Percentage of all persons

  28

  12

  14

  Persons 70 +

  1,007

  4,706

  5,713

  Percentage of all persons

  19

  7

  8

  54

  Severity of injury

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  1987

  Persons 60 +

  1,395

  7,686

  9,081

  Percentage of all persons

  27

  12

  13

  Persons 70 +

  949

  4,281

  5,230

  Percentage of all persons

  19

  7

  8

  1988

  Persons 60 +

  1,389

  8,128

  9,517

  Percentage of all persons

  27

  13

  14

  Persons 70 +

  948

  4,538

  5,486

  Percentage of all persons

  19

  7

  8

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to eliminate discharges from shipping harmful to the marine environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom has acceded to the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships 1973 and its protocol of 1978, and to two of the optional annexes. Annex I deals with pollution by oil, annex II by chemicals in bulk, annex III by harmful substances carried in packaged form and annex V by garbage. There is a legal obligation for ships registered in the United Kingdom to observe the requirements set out in annexes I, II and V. Annex III comes into force in 1991. Other ships in United Kingdom ports and waters also have to meet these requirements under the terms of the convention. The regulations are enforced by inspections in port and by the regular patrolling of shipping lanes by surveillance aircraft which have been increased by more than 60 per cent. with effect from the beginning of April 1990. These efforts have been strengthened by agreements reached last month at the third North sea conference in The Hague.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the application of annex V of the MARPOL convention 73/78.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Annex V of the MARPOL convention 73/78 came into force internationally on 31 December 1988. The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulations 1988 (statutory instrument 1988/2292) which came into force on the same day apply the provisions of this annex to United Kingdom ships, and to other ships when they are within the United Kingdom or its territorial waters. The Merchant Shipping (Reception Facilities for Garbage) Regulations 1988 (statutory instrument 1988/2293) require harbour authorities and terminal operators to provide reception facilities for garbage adequate to meet the needs of ships using the harbour or terminal. The Department has organised a poster campaign under the title "Over the Side is Over" to publicise the introduction of annex V and has issued a merchant shipping notice (M1389) to further advise seafarers of its provisions. Marine surveyors who visit ships as part of their duties are instructed to examine and report on the on board arrangements for handling garbage.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many movements of radioactive material there were in the United Kingdom in each of the years from 1980–1989; and for each year what percentage of movements were by road, what percentage by rail, and what percentage by air, respectively.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department does not collect this information.

  The International Atomic Energy Agency is setting up a database and it may be possible to provide information on the mode of transport in future years.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to prohibit the overnight parking in urban areas of vehicles and trains carrying flasks containing radioactive material; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Great Britain) Regulations do not permit the overnight parking of road vehicles carrying loaded irradiated fuel flasks in any area to which the general public has access. Flasks carried by rail which need to be kept overnight for operational reasons are held in the security of BR Board's private premises. It would not be practicable to make the distinction in these arrangements between urban and non-urban areas.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy for local authorities with responsibility for emergency planning to be notified in advance of the movement of high-level radioactive material through their areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  Contingency plans exist to provide a rapid radiological response to any incident involving radioactive materials in transit. Guidance has been provided by the Home Office to local authority emergency services. Prior notification would not contribute further to transport safety.

  Railways (Intensified Use)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there are any plans to provide compensation for domestic householders affected by intensified use of existing rail lines.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government have no plans to impose such an obligation.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations exist concerning the effects of noise in domestic households arising from intensified use of existing rail lines.

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Investment Criteria
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last reviewed the investment criteria as between road and rail employed by his Department; and what weight he gives to environmental factors therein.

  Mr. Portillo
  We keep the investment criteria between road and rail under continuous review. Environmental 56
  factors, where relevant, are fully taken into account when reaching decisions, although in general it is difficult to place monetary values on environmental effects.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for tolls on the present Severn bridge to be collected only on the route into Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans to do so.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the report of the efficiency scrutiny of vehicle excise duty enforcement will be available.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have today placed copies of this report in the Libraries of both Houses. The scrutiny has produced a substantial and lucid study of a major part of the activities of the Department's new driver and vehicle licensing agency. Its 28 principal recommendations propose improvements in the management and detailed policy objectives of vehicle excise duty enforcement. Some can be adopted without delay, some will need the agreement of the police, courts and other Departments, and some would require legislation. As is usual for efficiency scrutiny reports, an action plan on the recommendations is now to be drawn up.

  M1 (Repairs)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the current repairs to the M 1 between junctions 8 and 9 are complete what proportion of that section will have been widened to four lanes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The major maintenance works in progress consist of essential resurfacing and drainage renewal. No widening is being carried out at this stage.

  Hertfordshire county council has recently been commissioned to carry out design work in widening of the M1 between junctions 6A and 10. Possible options will be considered carefully. The public will then be consulted and a preferred option announced in due course.

SCOTLAND

  Leukaemia
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give a breakdown by age group of the figures supplied in his answer to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute of 1 March,Official Report, column 600, on recorded cases of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma;

  (2) whether the figures in this answer of 1 March, Official Report, column 600, on recorded cases of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma included (a) United States naval personnel and their families and (b) postcode sectors PA23, PA27 and PA28.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The breakdown requested is set out in the tables.

  United States naval personnel and their families would have been included in these figures if they were treated for cancer in Scottish hospitals.
  57
  The tables show the total number of registrations in Dunoon and the surrounding area covered by postcode sectors PA23.7 and PA23.8 during the years 1975 to 1987. For the earlier years, 1968–74, which predate the postcode system, the Dunoon and Kilmun parish was used.

  Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Registrations

  Year

  Age

  0–14

  15–24

  25–34

  35–44

  45–54

  55–64

  65–74

  75–84

  85 +

  Total

  1968

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1969

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1970

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  3

  1971

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  1972

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  1973

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  3

  1974

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  1975

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1976

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1977

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1978

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1979

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1980

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  3

  1981

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1982

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  1983

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1984

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  4

  1985

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1986

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1987

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  Total

  2

  0

  0

  2

  3

  4

  16

  10

  0

  37

  Leukaemia registrations

  Age

  Year

  0 to 14

  15 to 24

  25 to 34

  35 to 44

  45 to 54

  55 to 64

  65 to 74

  75 to 84

  85 +

  Total

  1968

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  3

  1969

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1970

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1971

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1972

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  3

  1973

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1974

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1975

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1976

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1977

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  1978

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1979

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1980

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1981

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1982

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1983

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1984

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1985

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1986

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1987

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  TOTAL

  2

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  6

  10

  0

  24

  Rates Collection
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of collecting rates in Scotland per pound collected in each year from 1986–87 until the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will give separate estimates for both domestic and non-domestic rates collection costs for the same period.
  58
  Leukaemia registrations.

  As in table.

  Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma registrations.

  As in table.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The costs of collecting the rates in Scotland for the years 1986–87 to 1989–90 together with the collection costs per pound collected for the same period are as follows:
  59

  Collection Costs £ million

  Cost of collection per £ collected pence

  1986–87

  10·9

  0·57

  1987–88

  12·1

  0·57

  1988–89

  15·5

  0·68

  1989–90

  1·6

  0·13

  The information for the years 1986–87 to 1988–89 inclusive is based on the costs relating to the collection of all rates in Scotland. Separate figures are not held centrally for domestic and non-domestic rates for these years. The figures for 1989–90 relate to non-domestic rates only.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Angus, East,Official Report, 30 March, column 360, he will list in the Official Report, the findings of the 1988 pilot survey of vacant land in Scotland, and the follow-up study when it is completed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The main findings of the pilot Scottish vacant land survey were as follows:

  There were 7,392 ha of derelict land and 5,060 ha of vacant land recorded in Scotland, a total of 12,452 ha.

  There were 5,261 vacant or derelict sites.

  Three per cent. of land was known to be contaminated, 7 per cent. suspected and 32 per cent. not suspected.

  The situation was unknown for 58 per cent.

  A commentary outlining the results of the survey has been placed in the Library. More information from the survey is available from the local authorities. The findings of the follow-up study will be published in due course.

  Regional Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the expenditure of each Scottish region and island council, by function, in each year from 1978–79 in(a) cash terms and (b) constant prices; and if he will indicate the percentage increase in each year in real terms.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested by the hon. Gentleman has today been placed in the Library of the House.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each constituency(a) the amount spent by Scottish Homes in the financial year 1989–90, and (b) the amount projected to be spent in 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In approving Scottish Homes programme for any year, my right hon. and learned Friend also agrees the amounts which Scottish Homes proposes should be spent on particular functions. The allocation of funds to specific areas is then a matter for Scottish Homes.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions have been taken out against persons alleged to have poisoned or trapped birds of prey in each of the last three years; and how many convictions were secured.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on the marine environment resulting from the use of organophosphorous pesticides in salmon farming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 25 January.

  A report on work by DAFS scientists on toxicity of Aquagard to other species is currently being prepared for publication.

  Nurses
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the different kinds of conversion courses and bridging courses currently available to nurses within the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In Scotland conversion courses are available in general, mental illness, mental handicap and sick children's nursing. They are open to first level registered nurses wishing to qualify in a different field of nursing and to second level nurses seeking eligibility to register as first level. Access by second level nurses is through a flexible programme of bridging studies tailored to individual needs.

  Crofters (Building Grants)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applicants, for each of the last 10 years, have been refused assistance under the crofters etc. building grants and loans scheme on the grounds of their income being considered too low to meet the loan repayments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 April 1990]: During the past 10 years only four applications have been refused solely on the grounds that an applicant had insufficient income, and could not provide a satisfactory guarantee or guarantor, for repayment of a loan.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the final cost to each health board of the provision of cover by the police and other bodies during the ambulance service dispute; and what was the total cost to public funds of the dispute.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 April 1990]: Final costs of the assistance provided by police and other bodies during the dispute are not yet available. Those costs incurred by health boards will be reimbursed by the Common Services Agency.

  Road Casualties
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made any analysis of the likely effects on the total of road casualties if the clock were to be advanced by one hour throughout the next five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 April 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 28 to 36 of the Green Paper "Summer Time: A Consultation Document" (Cm. 722), copies of which are in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq (Arms Component Exports)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will initiate an investigation into the role played by Euromac Ltd. of Thames Ditton in the sale of nuclear weapons components to Iraq.

  Mr. Ridley
  Any evidence of alleged breaches of the United Kingdom's export controls is carefully investigated. The particular incident to which the hon. Member refers is currently the subject of legal proceedings.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date he received the first indications that there was a problem in relation to the export from Walter Somers and Company concerning forgings and related equipment destined for Iraq.

  Mr. Ridley
  Earlier this month.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the level of British exports to Hong Kong; and what is the level of invisible income from Hong Kong.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on the value of United Kingdom visible exports to Hong Kong is published in the "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom",Business Monitor MM20, tables lb and V. Information on invisible income is not available.

  Accounting Practices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to require auditors to adopt an active approach to satisfy themselves regarding the going concern assumption specified in paragraph 10 of schedule 4 of the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Auditing guidelines already advise auditors of the need, when planning, performing and evaluating the results of their audit procedures, to be satisfied that the going concern basis of the accounts is appropriate.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will appoint an independent committee of inquiry to examine the possibility of requiring all large companies to have an annual social audit.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to his question on 3 April at column 507.
  62
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will amend the Partnerships Acts to require all firms authorised to act as auditors to file annual reports and accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to his question on 21 February at column 781.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to require company auditors to state in their audit report the matters for which they claim not to be responsible.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to his question on 5 April at column 803.

  Shareholder Rights
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, following the recent House of Lords ruling on Caparo Industries plc ν. Dickman and Otters (1) he will introduce legislation to restore the shareholder rights existing prior to that case;

  (2) he will introduce legislation to clarify auditor responsibility to shareholders.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have no plans to do so.

  Cotton Goods
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his assessment of the implications for sales of cotton goods in north-east Lancashire if the multi-fibre arrangement is not renewed.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: The implications of the non-renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement for sales of cotton goods produced in north-east Lancashire will depend on a number of factors. These include the exact arrangements for phasing out MFA restrictions over a transitional period, which remain to be negotiated, and the extent to which Lancashire production is competitive in meeting the needs of customers. The Government are continuing to press the case within the EC for satisfactory transitional arrangements.

DEFENCE

  Ship Charters
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to use only British merchant ships for Ministry of Defence charters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Fan-) on 18 April,Official Report, column 939.

  Joint Ocean Surveillance Information Centre
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) from which subheads of which votes the annual operating costs of the joint ocean surveillance information centre are taken;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the joint ocean surveillance information centre;
  63
  (3) in which year the joint ocean surveillance information centre was established;

  (4) what geographical areas are covered by the joint ocean surveillance information centre;

  (5) what is the annual operating cost of the joint ocean surveillance information centre;

  (6) what sources of information are used to input data into the joint ocean surveillance information centre;

  (7) where the joint ocean surveillance information centre is located;

  (8) whether information gathered by the joint ocean surveillance information centre would be used as a real-time data input into (a) UKADGE or (b) NADGE;

  (9) whether the United States of America makes any financial contribution to the annual operating cost of the joint ocean surveillance information centre.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The annual operating costs of the joint ocean surveillance intelligence centre, which was established in 1990 and is located at HMS Warrior, are some £2·7 million from votes 1A 1 and 2F. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the other information for which the hon. Gentleman has asked.

  Over-the-horizon Radar
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) from which subheads of which votes the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the cost of construction in support of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar to be built at RAF Brawdy and associated sites will be taken;

  (2) from which subheads of which votes the United Kingdom financial contribution to the cost of design work for the construction in support of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar to be built at RAF Brawdy and associated sites will be taken.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom's financial contribution to construction, including design work, in support of a two-year trial of a United States over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom will be taken from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force subheads of defence vote 2.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which subheads of which votes the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the cost of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar equipment to be installed at RAF Brawdy and associated sites will be taken.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom Government will be making no financial contribution to the costs of the United States over-the-horizon radar equipment to be located for a two-year trial in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which subheads of which votes the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the annual operating costs of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar will be taken.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom's financial contribution to the running costs of the two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar will be taken from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force subheads of defence votes 1 and 2.
  64
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list each of the joint United Kingdom-United States over-the-horizon research, development, testing and evaluation experiments in which his Department has participated or contributed funds;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the over-the-horizon radar experiment known as "Cobra Mist";

  (3) what is the bearing by true north of the centreline of the sector that will be covered by the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar;

  (4) what were the dates of(a) commencement and (b) cessation of the over-the-horizon experiment known as "Cold Witness";

  (5) what were the dates of (a) commencement and (b) cessation of the over-the-horizon experiment known as "Cobra Mist";

  (6) where was the site of the experimental radar system that was used during the over-the-horizon experiment known as "Cold Witness";

  (7) where was the site of the experimental radar system that was used during the over-the-horizon experiment known as "Cobra Mist";

  (8) whether the radar used during the over-the-horizon experiment known as "Cold Witness" had its receiver and transmitter antenna at the same location;

  (9) whether the radar used during the over-the-horizon experiment known as "Cobra Mist" had its receiver and transmitter antenna at the same location.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This information is classified.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the over-the-horizon radar experiment known as "Cold Witness";

  (2) what is the connection between the over-the-horizon radar experiments "Cobra Mist" and "Cold Witness" and the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar to be built at RAF Brawdy and associated sites.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  "Cold Witness" was at one time the name given to a joint United Kingdom-United States programme of studies aimed at testing the feasibility of siting an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom. I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the former right hon. Member for Western Isles on 21 December 1984 at column 378.

  The results of the joint programme of studies have now been fully considered, and a decision has been taken in principle to undertake a joint two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the dimensions of the receiving antenna for the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar to be installed at Blakehill in terms of(a) longest length and (b) area covered.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The length of the receiving antenna of the proposed over-the-horizon radar, to be sited at Blakehill radio station, Wiltshire, is 8,500 ft. The total area required for the installation is 145 acres.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the dimensions of the transmitting antenna for the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar to be installed at RAF Brawdy in terms of(a) longest length and (b) area covered.
  65
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The length of the transmitting antenna of the proposed over-the-horizon radar, to be sited at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, is 2,480 ft. The total area required for the installation is 85 acres.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what exclusion zones are planned round the transmitting antenna of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar to be built at RAF Brawdy for people at ground level.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The transmitter site for the two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom will be at the MOD-owned St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire. A safety exclusion zone, within which a radio-frequency hazard could exist, will be established around the transmitter. This safety exclusion zone will be well within the boundary of the site.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what exclusion zones are planned round the transmitting antenna of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar to be built at RAF Brawdy for aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Notification of a high intensity radio transmission area (HIRTA) will be made as part of the process of application for military clearance to use the site. Details will be made available to the national air traffic services and the civil aviation community.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the maximum range and (b) the minimum range of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The theoretical maximum and minimum ranges of an over-the-horizon radar are 1,600 nautical miles and 500 nautical miles respectively.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the United Kingdom financial contribution to the cost of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar equipment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None. The equipment for the trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom will be provided by the United States Government.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of(a) United Kingdom military personnel, (b) United Kingdom civilian personnel, (c) United States military personnel and (d) United States civilian personnel who will be based at the transmitter site of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No United Kingdom or United States military personnel will be based at the transmitter site of the proposed over-the-horizon radar. Up to 19 civilian maintenance and support staff will be based there; the proportion that will be United Kingdom personnel has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the number of(a) United Kingdom personnel, (b) United Kingdom civilian personnel, (c) United States military personnel and (d) United States civilian personnel who will be based at the receiver site of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar;

  (2) what is the number of (a) United Kingdom personnel, (b) United Kingdom civilian personnel, (c)
  66
  United States military personnel and (d) United States civilian personnel who will be based at the operations control centre of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Sixty United Kingdom military personnel will be based at the receiver site of the proposed over-the-horizon radar, including the control centre. A small number of United States military personnel, and a number of civilian staff of both nationalities, will also be stationed at Blakehill. Precise numbers have yet to be determined.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the proposed location for the operations control centre for the relocatable over-the-horizon radar.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The control centre for the two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom will be collocated with the receiver at the Blakehill radio station, Wiltshire.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total acreage of land to be used by the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar station at RAF Brawdy and associated sites.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The total area required at St. David's airfield, Dyfed, the site of the transmitter for a two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom is 85 acres, including buildings and a safety exclusion zone around the installation. The total area required at Blakehill radio station, Wiltshire, the site of the receiver, is 145 acres, including buildings.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the cost of construction in support of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar;

  (2) what is the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the cost of design work for the construction in support of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom Government will bear the full cost of preparing the sites, including all design and construction work, for the two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar. The maximum cost of this work is expected to be £11·3 million. It is not practicable to separate the cost of design work from that of the construction itself.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department has carried out into the potential problems of interference with the signal returns to a relocatable over-the-horizon radar caused by aircraft flying through the radar beams close to the transmitter site.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The characteristics of the over-the-horizon radar, and the way in which it is to be operated during its two-year trial, lead us to conclude that there will be no such problems.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the annual operating costs of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The cost of the United Kingdom's contribution, including manpower, to the operating costs of the proposed two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar will be about £3 million in each year.
  67
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he was first made aware of United States proposals to instal a relocatable over-the-horizon radar at RAF Brawdy and associated sites.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Defence Ministers have been aware for a number of years of the joint UK-US programme of studies aimed at testing the feasibility of siting an over-the-horizon radar system in the United Kingdom. I refer the hon. Member to the written answers given by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the then Member for Bosworth, to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and the then right hon. Member for Western Isles on 21 December 1984 at column 378.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any formal agreement has been signed between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government, or any armed service or agency under the control of the United States Government, regarding use of the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and United States Governments was signed on 20 April 1990 covering the planned two-year trial of a United States navy over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar to be built at RAF Brawdy and associated sites will be linked to the joint ocean surveillance information centre;

  (2) whether information gathered from the proposed relocatable over-the-horizon radar to be built at RAF Brawdy and associated sites would be used as a real-time data input into (a) UKADGE or (b) NADGE.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It would be premature to consider the possible operational assignment of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom before the results of its planned two-year trial have been fully assessed.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the necessity for the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Studies have indicated that an over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) situated in the United Kingdom could substantially enhance our air defence and early warning capabilities. No firm decision has been taken to put such a radar into operational service. We have, however, decided in principle to embark on a two-year joint trial, with the United States Government, of a United States navy OTHR to demonstrate whether the possible advantages of this radar can be achieved in practice.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has as to the annual running costs of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Once the proposed over-the-horizon radar transmitter is installed, the running costs of its two-year trial are expected to be limited to those of manpower, maintenance and the consumption of utilities and spares. It is not possible to be more precise at this stage.
  68
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the hon. Member for Pembroke was not given prior warning of the proposal to construct an over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield in his constituency.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 29 March 1990, as soon as possible after a formal decision had been taken in principle to undertake a two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom.

  I greatly regret that, in error, my hon. Friend was not informed in November 1988 that consideration was being given to undertaking the trial.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Preseli-Pembrokeshire district council was first informed of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation at the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There is no formal requirement for the Ministry of Defence to inform the Preseli-Pembrokeshire district council of the proposed installation of an over-the-horizon radar at St. David's airfield. I understand, however, that the Pembrokeshire national park authorities plan fully to consult local communities and all other interested parties once the formal notice of proposed development has been submitted.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what impact the installation of the proposed over-the-horizon radar at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, would have on the local tourist industry;

  (2) what measures are proposed to protect the environment of the Pembrokeshire national park in the event of the construction of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation taking place on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire;

  (3) what impact the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation at the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, would have on the local farming community;

  (4) what impact the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, would have on the local economy of the area.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This will be one of the aspects to be fully considered by the independent environmental impact assessment of the proposed installation, which will be undertaken shortly.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial contribution is to be made by the United States Government towards the construction of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United States Government will be responsible for providing, installing and preparing for operation the over-the-horizon radar planned to be situated in the United Kingdom for a two-year trial.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, if approved for construction, the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, will be built by private enterprise companies after tender.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes.
  69
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the exact Ordnance Survey grid reference for the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation at the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The proposed over-the-horizon radar transmitter to be installed at St. David's airfield, Dyfed, will be situated in the area around grid reference SM 7907 east/2551 north. The exact location will depend on the outcome of the planned environmental impact assessment.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any interference would be caused to radio, television or other telecommunications equipment by the operation of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The design of the planned over-the-horizon radar transmitter to be installed at St. David's airfield, Dyfed, is such that no interference to radio, television or other telecommunications facilities is expected.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to any hazards to health which might be found within the boundary of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The proposed over-the-horizon radar transmitter to be installed at St. David's airfield, Dyfed, will emit high-frequency electromagnetic radiation. In common with radiation from similar sources, such as radio broadcast transmitters, such radiation can, at very close ranges, be harmful. A safety exclusion zone will therefore be installed around the transmitter; its boundary will be well within the MOD perimeter boundary of the airfield.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many other sites were considered for the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation which is proposed for the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A total of 166 sites were considered for the installation of either the transmitter or the receiver for the proposed trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who was informed of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation for St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, in November 1988; and what response was received from those so informed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The then Parly Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), wrote to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) on 22 November 1988 that the Ministry of Defence was considering the installation of an over-the-horizon radar for a two-year trial; but that no decisions had been made. I greatly regret that, in error, my hon. Friend was not similarly informed at that date that we were considering undertaking the trial.
  70
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North was subsequently, at his request, briefed more fully by my hon. Friend the then Parly Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, in April 1989.

  The Pembrokeshire national park authorities were separately notified in late 1988 that the Ministry was considering the use of St. David's airfield as the transmitter site for this trial.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received to date on his proposal to construct an over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire; and if he will make a statement on the nature of the representations.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In addition to a number of parliamentary questions on the subject, I have received to date four letters from members of the public expressing concern about the possible environmental effects of the installation of an over-the-horizon radar transmitter at St. David's airfield, Dyfed.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the acreage and number of buildings and other ancillary equipment which would be used on the former St. David's airfield for the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation if approved.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The total land area required for the installation of an over-the-horizon radar transmitter at St. David's airfield, Dyfed, is about 85 acres, including a safety exclusion zone around the installation. Included in this area will be a single-storey temporary building and about 15 equipment containers.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to the siting of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation within the Royal Air Force station at Brawdy, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  RAF Brawdy, as an operational airfield with limited available space, would not be capable of accommodating an over-the-horizon radar transmitter with its associated safety exclusion zone.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a visit to the St. David's area of Pembrokeshire to discuss his Ministry's proposals for an over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have no immediate plans to do so; but officials from my Department, together with United States Government representatives, plan to make a full public presentation of our proposals to the local community and other interested parties once a formal notice of proposed development, supported by an independent environmental impact assessment, has been submitted to the Pembrokeshire national park authorities. We expect this to take place in late summer.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Dyfed county council was first informed of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation at the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There is no formal requirement for the Ministry of Defence to inform Dyfed county council of the
  71
  proposed installation of an over-the-horizon radar at St. David's airfield. I understand, however, that the Pembrokeshire national park authorities plan fully to consult local communities and all other interested parties once the formal notice of proposed development has been submitted.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has as to the number of(a) United States armed forces personnel, (b) Royal Air Force personnel, (c) other military personnel and (d) civilians who would be employed at the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire after construction.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No United Kingdom or United States military personnel will be based at the transmitter site of the proposed over-the-horizon radar. Up to 19 civilian maintenance and support staff will be based there after construction is complete.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the effects on civil aircraft of the proposed trials of a new radar transmitter at RAF Brawdy.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As is the case with all transmitting systems, there is a high intensity radio transmission area (HIRTA) associated with the proposed over-the-horizon radar transmitter at St. David's airfield, Dyfed, within which it would be unsafe for aircraft which are susceptible to induced electrical currents to operate. Notification of this HIRTA will be made as part of the process of application for military clearance to use the site. Full details will be made available to the national air traffic services and the civil aviation community.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the number, height, width and construction of the aerials proposed for the over-the-horizon radar installation at the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The proposed over-the-horizon radar transmitter to be installed at St. David's airfield, Dyfed, will consist of 35 aerials. These will consist of metal lattice masts with the copper aerial elements vertically strung from a wire that runs down from the top of the aerial to a pole in front. Sixteen of the aerials will be about 135 ft high; the rest will be lower. The total land required for the installation is about 2,480 ft by 1,450 ft; this includes the safety exclusion zone surrounding the installation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial contribution towards the annual running costs of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire, is to be made by the United States Government.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United States Government will be responsible for providing spares, specialist support and system maintenance for the trial of an over-the horizon radar in the United Kingdom; they will also provide the personnel necessary to support their own participation in the trial.
  72
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has as to the likely construction costs of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The construction costs of the proposed over-the-horizon radar transmitter at St. David's airfield, Dyfed, are estimated to be about £3·5 million.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the consultation process which he intends to institute for consideration of his proposals for an over-the-horizon radar installation at the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In accordance with the formal notification procedures established by the Government in 1984 for developments to be undertaken by Government Departments, the Ministry of Defence plans to submit a notice of proposed development (NOPD) to the appropriate planning authority, Pembrokeshire national park, in respect of the proposed installation of an over-the-horizon radar at St. David's airfield, Dyfed. This will be supported by a full and independent environmental impact assessment. Once the NOPD has been submitted, it is intended to give a full public presentation of proposals for the installation jointly with the United States authorities. We expect this to take place in late summer. I also understand that the Pembrokeshire national park authorities intend fully to consult the local community and all other interested parties once the formal NOPD has been submitted.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has as to the number of people who would be employed on the construction of the over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This will depend on the detailed proposals of the contractor who wins the competition to carry out this work.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Pembrokeshire national park was first informed of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The authorities of the Pembrokeshire national park, which is the appropriate planning authority in this case, were notified in late 1988 that the Ministry of Defence was considering the possible use of St. David's airfield as the transmitter site for the two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the proposed date for the start of construction of the over-the-horizon radar installation; and what is the likely construction period.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Construction is planned to start in mid to late 1991 and is expected to take about a year to complete.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any of the proposed trials of a new radar transmitter at RAF Brawdy will test its ability to integrate with NATO communications systems.
  73
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The proposed two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom will not specifically include its ability to integrate with NATO communications systems.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the effects on the human body of the proposed trials of a new radar transmitter at RAF Brawdy.

  Mr, Alan Clark
  My Department has no plans to trial a new radar transmitter at RAF Brawdy.

  Communications
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on Royal Navy use of the SSIXS—the submarine satellite information exchange system—communications system;

  (2) whether SSIXS channels can be used by the Royal Navy without clearance from United States authorities.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our usual practice to disclose information of this nature.

  Norwegian Sea
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of Royal Navy involvement in the United States maritime strategy with regard to plans for the defence of the Norwegian sea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  United States maritime strategy is designed to meet United States requirements. NATO as a whole is agreed on the need for forward maritime defence in the Norwegian sea to safeguard vital transatlantic and cross-channel reinforcement and resupply routes and to enhance the security of the northern flank. The Royal Navy makes a significant contribution to these tasks.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Royal Navy's policy of forward defence in the Norwegian sea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 5 of the article entitled "The Forward Defence of Europe" which is to be found on pages 15 and 16 of volume 1 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988.

  NATO Maritime Operations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the NATO concept of maritime operations;

  (2) what is his policy on the NATO concept of maritime operations;

  (3) whether the concept of maritime operations is now official NATO doctrine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO's concept of maritime operations is a concept developed by the NATO military authorities, in consultation with member nations, for the employment of allied maritime forces in support of NATO's defensive strategy. It is taken fully into account in United Kingdom planning for maritime operations.

  Kola Peninsula
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any noticeable change in the level of Soviet naval activity in and around the Kola peninsula in the last five years.
  74
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There has been no noticeable change in the level of Soviet naval activity in and around the Kola peninsula in the last five years.

  Environmental Guidelines
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what environmental guidelines his Department follows in deciding on the location of new installations.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Where appropriate, the MOD undertakes full environmental impact assessments in accordance with the regulations laid down in the appropriate DOE, Welsh Office and Scottish Office circulars.

  Radar Transmissions
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been carried out for his Department in the last 10 years into the effects of radar transmissions on the human body.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to carry out research into the effects of radar transmissions on the human body.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Compensation
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has to compensate local residents who may be affected by the construction of Ministry of Defence installations.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Where applicable, the MOD observes the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973.

  RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed construction of a new tower at RAF Brawdy, giving details of its height, width, cost and purpose.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The height of the new tower to be erected at RAF Brawdy will be 17·44m from ground level to the top of the cabin roof. The internal diameter will be 3·6m while the reinforced concrete walls will be 200mm thick, giving an overall diameter of 4m. The total estimated cost of the project is commercially confidential.

  The purpose of the tower is to support a secondary surveillance radar head which will improve the air traffic control facilities of the station.

  Iraq (Exports)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which date he and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) were first alerted to the fact that there was a problem over the Sheffield Forgemasters' export to Iraq.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Earlier this month.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates when the hon. Member for
  75
  Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) contacted his Department regarding export orders for Iraq; what was the subject of the hon. Member's representations on behalf of Walter Somers; and what was the response of his Department.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  These matters are being looked into at present.

  Voluntary Release
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the premature voluntary release survey form for other ranks contains a question on house purchase;

  (2) what have been the results from surveys over the last five years of members of the (a) Army and (b) Royal Air Force involved in premature voluntary release relating to the satisfaction level among officers with regard to house purchase opportunities; where this ranks in terms of dissatisfaction in relation to other items; and if he will place a copy of the blank forms for premature voluntary release surveys of (i) officers and (ii) other ranks in the Library;

  (3) what surveys involving house purchase satisfaction levels exist for the Army and the Royal Air Force other than those relating to premature voluntary release; if he will give the results for the last five years, indicating the ranking in relation to other items for dissatisfaction; whether a survey is carried out at JDSC among Army high-fliers; whether there is a Royal Air Force equivalent; whether there are any equivalents for other ranks in either service; and if he will place a copy of any blank forms relating to such surveys in the Library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend.

  Binary Hydrogen Fuel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has done any recent research on the development of binary hydrogen fuel for firing long-range projectiles from artillery carriers.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. My Department is not undertaking and has not recently undertaken research in the development of binary hydrogen fuel for artillery purposes.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Heyhoe report relating to his Department's maladministration on the Colin Wallace case has been completed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The report by Mr. David Heyhoe on the Ministry of Defence's handling of papers relating to the case of Mr. Colin Wallace has been completed and is being studied. As my right hon. Friend has undertaken, its conclusions will be made available to the House.

  Explosion (Deal)
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a report on the explosion at the Royal Marines school of music at Deal on 22 September 1989 was commissioned; by what date it was due to have been completed; when he received the report; and when, and in what form, it will be made available.
  76
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A board of inquiry was directed by the Commandant-General Royal Marines on 29 September 1989 to investigate all aspects of security in force at the Royal Marines school of music (RMSM) Deal, with particular reference to the period preceding the terrorist bomb explosion on 22 September. The board was instructed to present its report to the Commandant-General by 24 October. My right hon. Friend received advice on the report on 8 December and is considering its recommendations. The report is classified and will not be published. I would, however, expect a summary of its principal findings to be made available to the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence when my right hon. Friend has completed his deliberations.

  Genetically Engineered Organisms
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many animals have been involved in tests undertaken by or on behalf of his Department for each of the last five years in which genetically engineered micro-organisms were involved; what was the nature and purpose of these tests; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what funds were deployed by his Department on work in connection with genetically engineered micro-organisms in (a) 1984, (b) 1985, (c) 1986, (d) 1987, (e) 1988 and (f) 1989; how many personnel were involved in such work; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the purpose of work carried out by his Department in connection with genetically engineered micro-organisms.

  Mr. Neubert
  As we have repeatedly made clear, the United Kingdom has no chemical or biological weapons and no plans to acquire any. All research undertaken by or commissioned by the MOD in the chemical and biological field is defensive in nature and is to provide information which assists in the provision of effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons might be used against the United Kingdom armed forces.

  It is not our policy to go into details of specific research areas. Such information could enable an informed observer to gain a useful insight into the scope and direction of MOD work, to the detriment of national security.

  Defence Export Services
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries were visited by representatives of the defence export services organisation in 1989.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  DESO representatives travelled extensively during 1989 and visited numerous countries. Because of the confidentiality of many of the matters involved it is not the practice to list individual countries visited.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the overseas offices of the defence export services organisation, giving in each case the date when the office was opened.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  DESO's interests are covered by MOD staff at embassies throughout the world, but specific defence sales offices have been set up in:
  77

  Washington

  (1972)

  New Delhi

  (April 1984)

  Riyadh

  (January 1984)

  Kuala Lumpur

  (June 1986)

  Seoul

  (August 1988)

  Ankara

  (August 1988)

  Kuwait

  (February 1988)

  Canberra

  (August 1989)

  Space Research Corporation
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department had any information regarding the Space Research Corporation prior to 11 April.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department was aware of the existence of the company before that date.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sea Erosion
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has asked the National Rivers Authority to undertake into protecting land and dwellings from sea erosion, particularly in Suffolk and Norfolk; and if he will make public such reports.

  Mr. Maclean
  My officials have encouraged the National Rivers Authority (NRA)—and previously the former regional water authorities to undertake studies of the coastline generally.

  In particular, we have provided grant aid towards a major study of the coastline between the Humber and the Thames which was originally commissioned by the former Anglian water authority and is now being carried out on behalf of the NRA.

  The initial phases of the study are complete and the resulting sea defence management atlas has been made available to interested parties. The remaining phase of the study is designed to lead to a better understanding of coastal processes and should be complete by summer 1991. The data are expected to be used to support the subsequent development of coastal management strategies and again will be made available to interested parties.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his criteria for evaluating agricultural land, land of special scientific or heritage interests and dwellings in terms of sea defence schemes; and if he has plans to review the criteria.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is one of the conditions of grant that a proposed sea defence scheme must be economically worth while. The basic criterion is that its discounted benefits should at least equal its discounted cost.

  Valuation of agricultural land depends on the extent of flood damage expected in the absence of a scheme. In general, land subject to slight flooding, leading to a lower value land use, would be valued by assessing the consequent drop in gross margin, more severe flooding causing irreversible loss, would usually be valued at the "risk-free" market price of the land.

  A number of approaches are used to value land of special scientific or heritage interest. This may involve finding the price a conservation body is willing to pay for the land, or encouraging visitors to place a monetary value on their enjoyment of the site. (It is also a condition of grant that schemes must be environmentally sympathetic).
  78
  As with agriculture, the approach to property valuation depends on the frequency and severity of flooding likely to occur in the absence of a scheme. Minor losses are treated as recurrent losses and evaluated using well established techniques; for more severe damage the "risk-free" open market value of the property is used.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the coastline of Suffolk and Norfolk, in terms of sea defences and natural erosion, and his Department's plans until the end of the century.

  Mr. Maclean
  We fully recognise the need for improvements to coastal defences constructed in East Anglia following the floods in 1953 and now reaching the end of their useful life. Several major grant-aided schemes are already under way or in the course of preparation. Government grant allocated to the Anglian region has increased by 28 per cent. this year and represents over half of the total provision to the NRA.

  We review national long-term flood defence needs annually and the National Rivers Authority Anglian region's 10-year needs programme, which will take account of improvements in understanding of coastal processes, plays an important role in the considerations.

  The criteria are kept under continual review. We encourage and actively support research aimed at the improvement of evaluation techniques and Middlesex polytechnic is currently developing, with Ministry funding, a manual for the assessment of the benefits of coast protection and sea defence which will represent a considerable advance in this field.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the number and species of birds of prey poisoned in England and Wales during 1988, 1989 and 1990 to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the poisoning of wild, farmed, and domestic creatures by pesticides is collected by the agriculture departments through wildlife incident investigation schemes. Reports on the results are published. The report for 1988 will be published soon. A report on 1989 is in draft and will be published after it has been accepted by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  The information requested for England and Wales is as follows:

  Numbers

  Species

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Barn Owl

  3

  0

  0

  Buzzard

  6

  18

  2

  Goshawk

  0

  1

  0

  Hen Harrier

  0

  0

  1

  Kestrel

  0

  3

  0

  Little Owl

  2

  0

  0

  Peregrine Falcon

  1

  1

  0

  Red Kite

  0

  11

  0

  Sparrowhawk

  2

  1

  0

  Tawny Owl

  0

  1

  0

  Totals

  14

  36

  3

  (Incidents involved)

  13

  27

  2

  Consumer Panel
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give biographical details of each of the members of his consumer panel, including their involvement with particular organisations.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested has been published in a Food Safety Directorate press release issued today. A copy has been sent to the hon. Member.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations which submitted names of individuals to him to serve on the consumer panel.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following organisations were invited to submit names of individuals to serve on the consumer panel: Consumers Association, Consumers in the European Community Group, the National Consumer Council, the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, the Scottish Consumers Council and the Welsh Consumers Council.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individuals' names were submitted to him to serve on his consumer panel.

  Mr. Gummer
  Nine people were appointed to serve on the consumer panel—all nine names were submitted by the organisations which were requested to make nominations.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish the contact addresses for the individuals represented on his consumer panel.

  Mr. Gummer
  The panel secretariat is the contact point for requests for interviews and further information.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he used in selecting the individuals to serve on his consumer panel.

  Mr. Gummer
  The criteria for selecting individuals to serve on the panel were that they should be able to represent the views and concerns of ordinary consumers. They have been nominated by consumer organisations but they serve in an individual capacity and do not represent any particular organisation.

  Whaling
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to implement resolution 929 (1989) of the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in respect of the powers of the International Whaling Commission to be extended to dolphin and porpoise species of cetaceans.

  Mr. Curry
  We have for a long time insisted that the convention of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) as drafted already covers small cetaceans. A significant number of members of the IWC however take the opposite view and do not acknowledge that it has the legal competence to regulate catches of small cetaceans. Nevertheless we will continue our efforts alongside other like-minded countries within the IWC. In addition we work through other international fora for the protection of small cetaceans, most recently in relation to the indiscriminate use of large-scale drift nets.
  80
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Her Majesty's Government will support an extension of the international whaling convention moratorium on all quotas in commercial whaling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom played a leading role in the International Whaling Commission in securing the current moratorium on commercial whaling. We shall continue our policy that the moratorium should be maintained until the scientific committee of the IWC can clearly advise that the state of stocks is satisfactory and that a management procedure which safeguarded the stocks has been devised.

  Drift Net Fishing
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about those EEC countries which have banned the use of drift net fishing.

  Mr. Curry
  Within the European Community, drift nets are used for fishing for a range of commercial species and are subject to control and regulation under individual member states' legislation. Most recently Italy introduced a ban last October on drift netting for swordfish by its fishermen in the Mediterranean.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made any representations to the French Government about the slaughter of dolphins arising from drift net fishing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  No. Recent reports are unclear but marine mammals can be accidentally caught in nets. Much concern recently has been focused on the tuna fisheries in the Pacific ocean and the European Community has supported the United Nations resolution which was passed in December to deal with the indiscriminate use of large-scale pelagic drift netting on the high seas.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of cattle herds in December 1989 in each of the respective countries of Great Britain, where bovine spongiform encephalopathy was confirmed, had(a) a single case, (b) two cases or (c) three or more.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:

  One case

  Two cases

  Three or more cases

  England

  63·0

  18·9

  18·1

  Wales

  80·9

  11·8

  7·3

  Scotland

  88·1

  7·9

  4·0

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many offsprings of cows which had been confirmed as having bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been continuously monitored in each county of England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  The identities of known offspring of confirmed BSE cases are recorded as part of the Ministry's epidemiological investigations into the disease. These
  81
  records are compared with the identities of suspect cases of BSE reported to the Ministry as part of this on-going study. The numbers of offspring recorded in each county are as follows:

  County

  Offspring

  Avon

  77

  Bedfordshire

  21

  Berkshire

  43

  Buckinghamshire

  61

  Cambridge

  13

  Cheshire

  73

  Cleveland

  2

  Clwyd

  15

  Cornwall

  485

  Cumbria

  95

  Derbyshire

  66

  Devon

  642

  Dorset

  499

  Durham

  9

  Dyfed

  153

  Essex

  28

  Glamorgan Mid

  3

  Glamorgan South

  16

  Glamorgan West

  1

  Gloucestershire

  169

  Gwent

  38

  Gwynedd

  6

  Huntingdonshire

  280

  Hereford and Worcester

  111

  Hertfordshire

  16

  Humberside

  20

  Isle of Wight

  45

  Kent

  93

  Lancashire

  110

  Leicestershire

  159

  Lincolnshire

  53

  London

  1

  Merseyside

  2

  Norfolk

  87

  Northamptonshire

  45

  Northumberland

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  32

  Oxon

  107

  Powys

  33

  Salop

  167

  Somerset

  351

  Staffordshire

  80

  Suffolk

  74

  Surrey

  75

  Sussex East

  91

  Sussex West

  194

  West Midlands

  4

  Warwickshire

  43

  Wiltshire

  276

  Yorkshire North

  197

  Yorkshire South

  11

  Yorkshire West

  14

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the total population of adult cattle in Great Britain for the year ending 16 March.

  Mr. Gummer
  The annual incidence of confirmed cases for the year 17 March 1989—16 March 1990 is 0·2 per cent.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by age the cattle confirmed as having bovine spongiform encephalopathy in 1989 in England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:
  82

  Age (Years)

  Number of Cases

  1

  1

  2

  28

  3

  586

  4

  2,138

  5

  1,874

  6

  667

  7

  125

  8

  37

  9

  8

  10

  2

  11

  3

  12

  1

  15

  1

  1 One year 10 months.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the incidence in percentage terms of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-affected dairy herds in each county of England and Wales at 31 December 1989.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:

  County

  Percentage

  Cleveland

  5·49

  Durham

  4·36

  Tyne and Wear

  2·78

  Northumberland

  7·48

  Cumbria

  3·18

  North Yorkshire

  6·60

  South Yorkshire

  4·12

  West Yorkshire

  2·05

  Humberside

  6·40

  Lancashire

  4·80

  Merseyside

  10·26

  Manchester

  0·99

  Derbyshire

  4·10

  Leicestershire

  12·46

  Nottinghamshire

  6·93

  Cheshire

  4·93

  Shropshire

  7·88

  Staffordshire

  3·88

  Hereford and Worcester

  9·46

  Warwickshire

  9·34

  West Midlands

  4·55

  Lincolnshire

  12·96

  Norfolk

  14·93

  Suffolk

  13·79

  Bedfordshire

  13·64

  Cambridgeshire

  15·94

  Northamptonshire

  15·04

  Essex

  8·02

  Hertfordshire

  17·65

  London

  3·03

  Berkshire

  25·00

  Buckinghamshire

  8·70

  Oxford

  19·08

  Hampshire

  31·97

  Isle of Wight

  17·46

  Surrey

  20·94

  West Sussex

  33·33

  Kent

  23·31

  East Sussex

  15·43

  Gloucestershire

  18·13

  Avon

  10·44

  Wiltshire

  25·37

  Dorset

  26·31

  Somerset

  16·41

  Devon

  13·47

  Cornwall

  14·65

  Gwynedd

  2·66

  Clwyd

  3·57

  Powys

  3·10

  Dyfed

  3·76

  South Glamorgan

  9·85

  83

  County

  Percentage

  Mid Glamorgan

  4·88

  West Glamorgan

  0·88

  Gwent

  7·87

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have been confirmed as having bovine spongiform encephalopathy, in each county of England, for each year since the disease was discovered.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:

  Confirmed cases reported in 1986

  Number

  Kent

  4

  Cornwall

  1

  Devon

  1

  Somerset

  1

  Confirmed cases reported in 1987

  Number

  Bedfordshire

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  Essex

  2

  Lincolnshire

  3

  Norfolk

  3

  Northamptonshire

  1

  Suffolk

  6

  Cheshire

  7

  Derbyshire

  3

  Hereford and Worcester

  10

  Lancashire

  2

  Leicestershire

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  Shropshire

  13

  Staffordshire

  5

  West Midlands

  1

  Warwickshire

  4

  Cumbria

  8

  Durham

  2

  North Yorkshire

  7

  Berkshire

  5

  Buckinghamshire

  8

  Hampshire

  12

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Kent

  20

  Oxfordshire

  5

  Surrey

  7

  East Sussex

  4

  West Sussex

  7

  Avon

  9

  Cornwall

  61

  Devon

  85

  Dorset

  30

  Gloucestershire

  19

  Somerset

  32

  Wiltshire

  17

  Confirmed cases reported in 1988

  Number

  Bedfordshire

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  8

  Essex

  3

  Hertfordshire

  9

  Lincolnshire

  32

  Norfolk

  32

  Northamptonshire

  13

  Suffolk

  31

  Cheshire

  35

  Derbyshire

  25

  Hereford and Worcester

  55

  Lancashire

  50

  84

  Number

  Leicestershire

  51

  Manchester

  1

  Merseyside

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  9

  Shropshire

  55

  Staffordshire

  40

  West Midlands

  2

  Warwickshire

  16

  Cleveland

  2

  Cumbria

  44

  Durham

  3

  Humberside

  8

  North Humberland

  17

  North Yorkshire

  74

  South Yorkshire

  3

  West Yorkshire

  11

  Berkshire

  34

  Buckinghamshire

  11

  Hampshire

  116

  Isle of Wight

  13

  Kent

  62

  Oxfordshire

  46

  Surrey

  35

  East Sussex

  28

  West Sussex

  82

  Avon

  18

  Cornwall

  265

  Devon

  308

  Dorset

  169

  Gloucestershire

  111

  Somerset

  170

  Wiltshire

  144

  Confirmed cases reported in 1989

  Number

  Bedfordshire

  22

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  Essex

  34

  Hertfordshire

  35

  Lincolnshire

  62

  Norfolk

  87

  Northamptonshire

  66

  Suffolk

  75

  Cheshire

  130

  Derbyshire

  81

  Hertford and Worcester

  131

  Lancashire

  104

  Leicestershire

  169

  Manchester

  5

  Merseyside

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  42

  Salop

  181

  Staffordshire

  108

  West Midlands

  7

  Warwickshire

  74

  Cleveland

  9

  Cumbria

  109

  London

  4

  Durham

  22

  Humberside

  23

  North Humberland

  24

  North Yorkshire

  231

  South Yorkshire

  14

  West Yorkshire

  17

  Berkshire

  47

  Buckinghamshire

  51

  Hampshire

  331

  Isle of Wight

  48

  Kent

  174

  Oxfordshire

  118

  Surrey

  69

  East Sussex

  102

  West Sussex

  181

  Avon

  138

  Cornwall

  545

  Devonshire

  816

  85

  Number

  Dorset

  671

  Gloucestershire

  231

  Somerset

  533

  Wiltshire

  473

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the farms by county in England and Wales, on which cattle were found to have bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also had sheep on them.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:

  County

  Percentage

  Bedfordshire

  100·0

  Cambridgeshire

  58·3

  Essex

  51·7

  Hertfordshire

  54·5

  Lincolnshire

  72·0

  Norfolk

  53·6

  Northamptonshire

  76·8

  Suffolk

  47·1

  Cheshire

  63·2

  Derbyshire

  61·5

  Hertford and Worcester

  83·7

  Lancashire

  75·8

  Leicestershire

  73·2

  Manchester

  50·0

  Merseyside

  40·0

  Nottinghamshire

  62·2

  Shropshire

  80·1

  Staffordshire

  61·1

  West Midlands

  81·8

  Warwickshire

  79·4

  Dyfed

  76·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  80·0

  South Glamorgan

  70·6

  West Glamorgan

  100·0

  Gwent

  83·1

  Gwynedd

  83·3

  Powys

  79·0

  Cleveland

  77·8

  Cumbria

  88·1

  Durham

  76·9

  Humberside

  52·9

  Northumberland

  84·0

  Tyne and Wear

  0·0

  North Yorkshire

  72·5

  South Yorkshire

  40·9

  West Yorkshire

  54·5

  Berkshire

  72·5

  Buckinghamshire

  79·5

  Hampshire

  61·9

  Isle of Wight

  60·7

  Kent

  88·9

  London

  66·7

  Oxfordshire

  74·7

  Surrey

  71·4

  East Sussex

  88·2

  West Sussex

  69·7

  Avon

  55·6

  Cornwall

  66·7

  Devon

  88·5

  Dorset

  56·5

  Gloucestershire

  74·0

  Somerset

  63·4

  Wiltshire

  60·4

  Clwyd

  69·1

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the number of confirmed cases of BSE for each county of England and Wales for the four-week period ended 16 April.
  86
  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  County

  Numbers

  Avon

  21

  Bedfordshire

  3

  Berkshire

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Cheshire

  24

  Cleveland

  1

  Clwyd

  7

  Cornwall

  68

  Cumbria

  25

  Derbyshire

  17

  Devon

  111

  Dorset

  88

  Durham

  3

  Dyfed

  28

  Essex

  4

  Mid Glamorgan

  3

  West Glamorgan

  1

  Gloucestershire

  26

  Gwent

  5

  Hampshire

  19

  Hereford and Worcester

  11

  Hertfordshire

  7

  Humberside

  7

  Isle of Wight

  8

  Kent

  16

  Lancashire

  24

  Leicestershire

  19

  Lincolnshire

  5

  Manchester

  I

  Norfolk

  24

  Northamptonshire

  5

  Northumberland

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  7

  Oxon

  15

  Powys

  4

  Salop

  19

  Somerset

  71

  Staffordshire

  15

  Suffolk

  10

  Surrey

  8

  East Sussex

  7

  West Sussex

  21

  West Midlands

  1

  Warwickshire

  6

  Wiltshire

  49

  North Yorkshire

  55

  South Yorkshire

  3

  West Yorkshire

  4

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle were notified as having bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each of the two months prior to 100 per cent. compensation being paid; and what are the figures for the months following that date.

  Mr. Gummer
  Increased compensation was paid from 14 February 1990. The information requested on a weekly basis for Great Britain is as follows:

  Week ending

  Number of suspects

  5 January 1990

  245

  12 January 1990

  292

  19 January 1990

  284

  26 January 1990

  294

  2 February 1990

  309

  9 February 1990

  329

  16 February 1990

  362

  23 February 1990

  367

  2 March 1990

  424

  9 March 1990

  393

  87

  Week ending

  Number of suspects

  16 March 1990

  392

  23 March 1990

  351

  30 March 1990

  329

  6 April 1990

  323

  13 April 1990

  278

  Honey Bees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of bee officers employed by his Ministry for each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of bees officers employed by the Ministry in both 1988 and 1989 was 35. In order to make the most effective use of resources inspection of bees is concentrated on those colonies where foul brood is suspected or which have a recent history of the disease.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to control varroasis in honey bees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  At present the Importation of Bees Order 1980 prohibits imports of all bees of the genus Apis (honey bees), except under licence from countries of high bee health status which are free from varroasis. It remains our aim to keep this country free of varroasis. The European Community Commission has proposed that after 1992 national measures on animal health, including bee health should be replaced by European Community controls. Discussions are still at an early stage and we shall continue to press for the best possible safeguards.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has plans to include Apis Bombus in the Bee Control Order 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have at present no plans to extend the powers under the Bees Act 1980 to exclude importation of bees of the genus Bombus (bumble bees). However, I am keeping this issue under careful review and would be prepared to consider action to control the importation of bumble bees should there be evidence that their importation poses a risk to the health of United Kingdom honey bees.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which of his Ministry's offices his bee officers are located; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In 1989 bees officers were located in Ministry offices as follows:

  Officers

  Soulh-East

  Guildford

  4

  Oxford

  1

  Maidstone

  2

  Eastern

  Chelmsford

  3

  Huntingdon

  2

  88

  Officers

  Lincoln

  1

  Norwich

  2

  Northern

  Beverley

  2

  Carlisle

  1

  Newcastle

  2

  Northallerton

  1

  Midlands and Western

  Crewe

  1

  Nottingham

  1

  Preston

  1

  Worcester

  2

  South Western

  Exeter

  2

  Gloucester

  2

  Taunton

  4

  Truro

  1

  Total

  35

  This wide distribution ensures that all parts of the country are covered in cases of actual or suspected outbreaks of foul brood.

  North Riding Lamb Ltd.
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the results of his report on the tests on lamb carcases carried out at North Riding Lamb Ltd. prior to Christmas 1989.

  Mr. Gummer
  My officials will shortly be writing to the managing director of North Riding Lamb Ltd. to inform him of the results of tests on previously certified lamb carcases.

  It is not our practice to place in the Library details of correspondence between the Department and the individuals or companies on matters such as this.

  Irradiated Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the maximum permitted becquerel levels in different foodstuffs on food produced in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the European Community and (c) Third world countries (i) in 1988 and (ii) currently; whether he has plans to change these levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In 1986, as a result of the Chernobyl accident, a limit of 1,000 becquerels of radiocaesium per kilogramme was introduced in the United Kingdom for home-produced sheepmeat. This remains the current limit.

  In the event of a future nuclear accident, the levels which would automatically apply to food produced throughout the European Community were established in Council regulation (Euratom) No. 3954/87. These maxima still apply today, supplemented by Council regulation (Euratom) 2218/87, and are given in the table.

  Guidance on similar levels to be applied to food traded internationally was promulgated by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July 1989.

  No changes are envisaged in the above position.
  89

  Foodstuffs (becquerels per kilogramme)

  Baby foods

  Dairy produce

  Other foodstuffs except minor food-stuffs1

  Liquid foodstuffs

  Isotopes of strontium, notably Sr-90

  75

  125

  750

  125

  Isotopes of iodine, notably I-131

  150

  500

  2,000

  500

  Alpha-emitting isotopes of plutonium and transplutonium elements, notably Pu-239 Am-241

  1

  20

  80

  20

  All other nuclides of half-life greater than 10 days, notably Cs-134, Cs-137

  400

  1,000

  1,250

  1,000

  1 For minor foodstuffs as defined in Commission Regulation (Euratom) No. 944/89, the maximum permitted levels to be applied are 10 times those applicable to "other foodstuffs except minor foodstuffs".

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has conducted to establish the presence of viruses in sewage sludge dumped in the North sea; and if he will make a statement on the implications of the results of the research for the fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the conditions of licensed dumping at sea the concentrations of viruses offshore at sewage sludge disposal sites will generally be much lower than in inshore areas near sewage outfalls. The Ministry is therefore concentrating its research on viruses on shellfish in inshore waters receiving sewage discharges. The Department of the Environment is funding research by the water research centre to assess the risk of contracting illnesses from sea bathing.

  There have been complaints from some fishermen of illness as a result of fishing at disposal sites. The Ministry has taken these complaints seriously and in spring 1989 asked the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to arrange for evidence to be provided to the employment medical advisory service. Over the last year four cases have been referred to EMAS, including one medical history which is being evaluated.

  The Ministry's studies of disposal sites have shown no clear relationship between the prevalence of disease in fish stocks and the presence of sewage sludge in these areas.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the extent and nature of his Department's monitoring of sewage sludge disposal grounds.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the first report of the marine pollution management group's co-ordinating group on monitoring of sewage sludge disposal sites. This was issued as aquatic environment monitoring report No. 20 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's directorate of fisheries research.

  A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Organic Farming
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 18 December 1989,Official Report, column 31, whether the Soil Association or British Organic Growers would also be eligible to receive grant aid.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department is already grant-aiding the United Kingdom register of organic food standards (UK ROFS) with £60,000 per annum. It also supports research directly related to organic farming amounting to 90
  £198,000 last year and other research of assistance to organic farmers amounting to £892,000 last year. Other aids to organic farmers were listed in the written answer given on 16 January to a question from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), Official Report, columns 215–16. Further grant aid to the Soil Association or British Organic Growers is not envisaged.

  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what European Community support is being made available to farmers intending to change from traditional to organic methods.

  Mr. Maclean
  Payments for leaving land fallow under the set aside scheme can assist with the cost of conversion to organic farming, whilst grants can be made under the farm and conservation grant scheme towards investment in organic production. Both schemes are part funded by the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. Similar funding arrangements would apply to the pilot whole farm organic extensification scheme, on which a consultation document will be issued shortly. For details of the full range of assistance to the organic sector I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 16 January 1990 at columns 215–16.

  Contaminated Food
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to transfer responsibility for dealing with food contamination arising from a nuclear incident to local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been carried out to establish whether tuberculosis infection can be spread from badgers to cattle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  It has been demonstrated under laboratory conditions that badgers infected with bovine tuberculosis can transmit the disease to cattle. Additionally, since the removal of all badgers from a study area in Avon during 1981, there have been no instances of tuberculosis infection in cattle in the area.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much, for each year from 1980 to 1989, inclusive, was spent on environmental research by his Department.
  91
  Mr. Gummer
  All research and development funded by MAFF takes environmental consideration fully into account. That work which is specifically concerned with the environment is listed in the second edition of the "Register of Government-funded Agriculture/Environment R and D in the United Kingdom", a copy of which I am placing in the Library of the House. Details for 1980–83 are not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Details for 1989 are not yet available.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of the controlled droplets application method of applying pesticides.

  Mr. Maclean
  This method of applying pesticides uses equipment which generates spray droplets by means, most commonly, of a spinning disc rather than by conventional hydraulic pressure spray nozzles. Britain has a good record of innovation in the important area of finding effective ways of delivering pesticide to the target. Practical equipment for applying sprays by rotary atomisers was substantially developed in the mid-1970s and a number of systems for generating spray droplets of a controlled size are now available to users. The Government welcome all the efforts which are being made by equipment manufacturers to minimise the amount of pesticide which needs to be sprayed and to make it easier for users to meet their obligations to avoid pesticide drifting into areas where it might harm people, creatures, plants or the environment in general.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has in respect of the quantities of formulated pesticides sprayed on farmland in(a) 1970, (b) 1975, (c) 1980, (d) 1985 and (e) 1989; and what percentage for each year it is estimated was applied by (i) tractor, and (ii) aerial spraying.

  Mr. Maclean
  Estimates based on pesticide usage surveys of farms and holdings in England and Wales are as follows:

  Year

  Quantity of active ingredient of all pesticides applied by all methods (tonnes)

  Applied from the air (percentage by area treated)

  1970

  22,062

  1—

  1975

  25,497

  1—

  1980

  35,533

  1·74

  1985

  34,124

  1·80

  1989

  29,361

  0·23

  1 Not available.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement(a) on the progress of his expert working party on cereal control failure as a result of misapplied chemicals, (b) what studies his Department is sponsoring in relation to those genes which trigger toxin production and (c) what studies his Department is conducting on resistance to insecticides, in view of the 1990 explosion in aphid populations.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am not aware of the expert working party to which the hon. Member refers in part(a) of his question.
  92
  On part (b), I assume that the hon. Member is referring to those genes which reduce Bacillus thuringiensis toxin. Although my Department is not providing funds directly to research on the insertion of genes into crop plants, it is financially supporting the work of the researchers (funded by the Department of Education and Science) to incorporate the more applied aspects of genetic improvement into their integrated research programmes.

  On part (c), my Department is supporting extensive programmes of research into the genetics and biochemistry of pesticide resistance in cereal aphids, flies and other pests of growing and stored crops.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the levels of support offered to farmers under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans at present to increase the level of support offered to farmers in ESAs. Payment levels in ESAs are reviewed three years after the scheme is established. We carried out a payments review on ESAs designated in 1987 (Broads, Pennine dales, Somerset levels and moors, south downs and west Penwith) last year and concluded there was no strong evidence to suggest an increase or decrease in their levels. We shall be carrying out a payments review of ESAs designated in 1988 later this year. The rate of uptake in ESAs has been well up to expectations which suggests that payments are pitched broadly at the right levels.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the cost, at present uptake, of increasing the payment for ESAs from £64 to £90 per hectare; what estimate he has made of the percentage increase in land governed by the ESA scheme of such an increase; and what the inclusion of such additional land under the ESA would cost.

  Mr. Maclean
  The level of ESA payments varies between £10 and £300 per hectare reflecting the agricultural and environmental circumstances of each area. In no ESA is there a current payment rate of £64 per hectare.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received(a) from the National Farmers Union and (b) from other sources in respect of the operation and levels of payment of the ESA scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  During the course of our review of ESA payments in those areas designated in 1987 (Broads, Pennine dales, Somerset levels and moors, south downs, west Penwith) the NFU reiterated its view that ESA payments should be index-linked. We received no representations from other sources. The level of ESA payments are reviewed three years after the area is designated. We concluded that the recent review showed no strong evidence to suggest payments should be increased or decreased from their current levels. The rate of uptake in ESAs has been well up to expectations which suggests that payments are pitched broadly at the right levels.
  93
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to review the level of payments made under the ESA scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The levels of payments in ESAs are reviewed three years after each scheme is introduced. We carried out a payments review on those ESAs designated in 1987 (Broads, Pennine dales, Somerset levels and moors, south downs, west Penwith) last year and concluded there was no strong evidence to suggest an increase or decrease in their levels. We shall be carrying out a payments review of those ESAs designated in 1988 later this year. The rate of uptake in ESAs has been well up to expectations which suggests that payments are pitched broadly at the right level.

  Microwaves
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further research has been commissioned in the current year into the safety of microwaves in respect of food cooked therein; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following on from the extensive research commissioned by this Department last year on the performance of domestic microwave ovens on heating food, three further studies are being funded this year:

  a. Evaluation of the decline in power when domestic ovens are used continuously, (Institute of Food Research—Completion date June 1990).

  b. Assessment of the performance of commercial microwave ovens, (Campden Food and Drink Research Association—Completion date Autumn 1990).

  c. The influence of the physical, thermal and electrical properties on the quality of food heated by microwaves, (Campden Food and Drink Research Association—Completion date March 1991).

  Meat Restructuring
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) of 9 February,Official Report, column 824, whether he will review his decision to curtail research into factors controlling meat restructuring processes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This research project was considered thoroughly during the near-market review and, as explained in the reply on 9 February to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) at column 824 was clearly identified as being suitable for industrial support. No new information has led us to review this decision.

  Extensification
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans he has to encourage extensification schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 2 April at column 448.

  Arctic Fox Farms
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the locations of the three arctic fox farms in England and Scotland.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. We do not publish this information.

  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the gap in percentage terms between the green pound and the pound sterling for each of the common agricultural policy commodities at the latest convenient date;

  (2) what was the size of the monetary compensatory amounts on each of the commodities covered by the Agriculture Council at the most recent convenient date.

  Mr. Maclean
  The real monetary gaps (RMGs) which represent the percentage difference between green and market rates of exchange and the United Kingdom monetary compensatory amounts (MCAs), to be applied for the week beginning 23 April 1990, are shown in the table.

  RMG

  MCA

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Beef

  −16·450

  −15·0

  Milk

  −20·273

  −18·8

  Pigmeat

  −12·872

  −11·4

  Eggs and Poultry

  −20·273

  −16·2

  Cereals and Sugar

  −21·194

  −19·7

  Olive Oil

  −21·194

  −11·2

  Sheepmeat

  −21·549

  −

  Notes:

  1. Negative MCAs are normally calculated by deducting a franchise of 1·5 points from the RMG. A 10 point franchise is deducted from the RMG in the olive oil sector.

  2. The eggs and poultry MCA is calculated by deducting a 5 point franchise from the cereals RMG.

  3. No MCA is applied in the sheepmeat sector.

ENERGY

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the basis for the assumption that the area supply companies in the electricity industry will require a £5 billion programme of capital investment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The estimated capital expenditure of £5 billion is based on the public electricity supply companies' (the successors to the area boards) assessment of the investment requirements of their local networks over the next five years. It includes projected expenditure on providing new connections, reinforcing the network where necessary and replacement of old equipment. The actual level of expenditure will be a matter for the companies themselves, subject to their licence and statutory obligations.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to advise prospective house purchasers on how to save energy; and if he will make a statement.
  95
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Energy Efficiency Office within my Department provides information and advice on energy efficiency in the home, and runs publicity campaigns for which those moving and improving their homes are a priority target. It is also lending its support to home energy labelling schemes, designed to inform house purchasers on energy running costs.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what plans he has to promote energy efficiency and energy conservation by means of media advertisements; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what funds have been allocated for (a) the current and (b) the next financial year for advertising aimed at encouraging the public to save energy.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The total marketing budget of the Energy Efficiency Office in support of its programmes, including publications, seminars and workshops throughout the country, is £2·6 million in the current financial year. Plans for the advertising component of this budget are not finalised. The marketing budget for the next financial year has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will permit energy conservation measures as an option to meet the requirements of the non-fossil fuel obligation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No. Energy efficiency is being promoted by other means. The NFFO is designed to maintain diversity in generation and to share out the additional costs of achieving that diversity.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy why the energy efficiency demonstration scheme was closed in 1989.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The energy efficiency demonstration scheme was terminated when it was replaced by the best practice scheme, which has a wider scope and coverage.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what incentives exist to encourage electricity generating companies to invest in energy-saving measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Electricity generators have substantial commercial incentives to minimise their fuel costs by improving the thermal efficiency of their existing generating plant and by building more efficient plant in future. This will improve their competitive position compared with any other generators which fail to do so.

  Best Practice Scheme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the budget for the best practice scheme operated within his Department; what are its primary objectives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The budget for the best practice programme for 1990–91 is £11·9 million. The programme's primary objectives are to foster research, development, demonstration and dissemination of energy-efficient technologies and techniques and so to advance and spread good practice in energy efficiency in industrial processes, commercial and public sectors and buildings including housing.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to require Sizewell B nuclear plant to be fitted with a special filtered containment venting system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The question of whether filtered vented containment should be fitted at Sizewell B is a matter for Nuclear Electric, which must satisfy the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate (NII) on the safety of the station. If the NII concludes that the balance of safety considerations favours the use of filtered vented containment, it has the power to require it to be fitted.

  Methane Leakage
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent information he has on leakage levels of methane from the gas distribution system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Information on methane emissions from a variety of sources, including the gas distribution system, is contained in table 2.12 on page 24 of the 1989 edition of the Department of the Environment's publication, "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics". A copy of this publication is in the Library of the House.

  The Department of the Environment is currently undertaking a study to improve the understanding of methane emissions and thereby the accuracy of the inventory.

  Office of Electricity Regulation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline the powers and duties of the Office of Electricity Regulation in respect of investments by the electricity generating companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  The director has no specific powers or duties relating to investment in electricity generation, beyond his general duties under the Electricity Act 1989. In a competitive market, special regulatory powers should not be necessary.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made an assessment of the implications of the recent European Commission ruling in respect of subsidy for renewable energy schemes for the development and application potential of the schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 18 April to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) at column 853.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the nature, scale and implications of any changes or corrections that have been made recently to the assessment of the costs of renewable energy in reports and papers for which his Department is responsible.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Each renewable energy technology is reappraised periodically in the light of the most
  97
  up-to-date information. For example, a study to update the prospects for wave energy in the United Kingdom is currently under way. The Department of Energy through its agent, the energy technology support unit, makes available to the public any new information through publication of project results and studies.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his assessment of the cost of offshore wave energy, calculated on the basis of a return on investment equivalent to that achieved by the Central Electricity Generating Board over the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As I announced to the House on 13 November 1989, an updating study to review cost, technical and commercial viability and prospects for wave energy in the United Kingdom is currently under way. Progress reports on that study will be made available as the work is undertaken and the final report will be published.

  Electricity Generating Industry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the potential benefits and disbenefits resulting from the introduction of least-cost planning to the electricity generating industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  "Least-cost planning" can sometimes increase energy efficiency in highly regulated and vertically integrated energy monopolies. In competitive industries, such as that being established in electricity generation in England and Wales, it would not increase energy efficiency but would create unnecessary bureaucracy, thereby risking inappropriate market distortions and consequent inefficiency.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much was spent in each year, from 1980 to 1989 inclusive, on environmental research by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Environmental issues are taken into account across the range of my Department's R and D programmes, but in general the environmental elements of individual programmes or projects are not separately costed.

  National Society for Clean Air
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he regularly obtains for his departmental library copies of reports produced by the National Society for Clean Air; and if he has any plans to meet representatives from that organisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department's library obtains the society's members' handbook and the annual pollution handbook. I have no plans to meet representatives of the society.

  Energy Audits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the support being offered by his Department to home energy audits.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Energy Efficiency Office (EEO) within my Department promotes and publishes a98
  guide to householders who might wish to conduct an energy audit of their home themselves. Under the proposed home energy efficiency scheme, the EEO would offer support for the provision of expert advice on energy efficiency to householders on low incomes. For other householders who seek expert advice, the regional offices of the EEO can suggest appropriate consultants.

  Radioactive Material (Transport)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what security measures are taken to ensure the safe transport by road and rail of radioactive material

  Mr. Baldry
  It would not be in the nation's interest to divulge security measures. The existing arrangements are kept under continuous review and I am satisfied that they are adequate to protect public safety. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) to the then Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) on 27 July 1982 at column 438.

EMPLOYMENT

  Pop Concerts (Safety)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money was spent by the Health and Safety Executive in fulfilling its obligations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in respect of safety at pop concerts during the last year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available as it is not possible to identify separately from other responsibilities the level of resources spent by the Health and Safety Executive on safety at pop concerts.

  Agricultural Inspectorate
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the target frequency of visits by inspectors of the agricultural division of the Health and Safety Executive to farm premises; what is the actual frequency of visits to farm premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate's programme of preventive visits to work premises, including farm premises, is planned on the basis of an inspection rating system which is reviewed at each visit to the premises. In addition, an annual review is undertaken to take into account the period since the last preventive inspection.

  Information is not available on the actual frequency of visits to farm premises, but between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 agricultural inspectors made a total of 32,041 inspection visits.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps the agricultural inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive is taking to ensure compliance with the code of practice on the sale and supply, including storage, of pesticides approved for agricultural use; what assessment he has made of the extent to which the code is being observed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate are responsible for
  99
  seeking compliance with the Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) 1985 and the code of practice for suppliers of pesticides at premises for which they have enforcement responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and other health and safety legislation. Inspectors consider compliance with FEPA at preventive inspection visits and at visits for other purposes such as to investigate accidents, complaints and dangerous occurrences.

  Information is not available on the extent to which the code of practice is being observed.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time workers there were in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989, there were 17,071,000 full-time employees in employment in Great Britain. Details of full-time employment are not available on a regional basis.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date those persons tendering for the skill centres were informed that £11 million was to be made available to the prospective purchaser; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Skills Training Agency was offered for sale by private tender, and bidders were invited to submit offers. The sale of training businesses announced on 13 February,Official Report, columns 141–42, will involve a payment from the Government to Astra of some £11 million. This is a price determined in the sale process after open and competitive bids and subsequent negotiations. It reflects the costs of turning round a business which is currently unprofitable and creating a training business with good prospects of viability.

  Earnings
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average earnings figure for all full-time workers in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available information on average earnings for full-time employees in Scotland and Great Britain is published in table X5, part A, of the 1989 new earnings survey report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether there is any mandatory minimum rate of pay for employees of private security firms operating in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Pay in the security industry is a matter for businesses to determine in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to monitor and to 100
  influence the employment conditions and rates of pay being applied by private security firms in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None. Pay and conditions are a matter for the industry to determine in the light of all relevant circumstances.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the new flexibility available to training and enterprise councils, including the new eligibility rules, in the delivery of employment training.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will have considerable freedom and flexibility in the delivery of employment training. The TECs' operating agreement outlines the arrangements for the delivery of employment training and details the eligibility rules. A copy of this document is available in the Library.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure in both cash and real terms on youth training excluding community industry in each of the years 1987–88 to 1989–90 and the planned expenditure in each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 for Great Britain and each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Expenditure on YTS and planned expenditure on youth training for Great Britain are as follows:

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Real Prices

  Cash Prices

  £ million

  £ million

  1987–88

  1,137·7

  987·8

  1988–89

  1,063·4

  993·8

  1989–90

  983·0

  983·0

  1990–91

  836·0

  878·2

  1991–92

  728·4

  778·5

  1992–93

  679·5

  732·8

  The figures shown in column 1 are at constant (estimated) 1989–90 prices and were calculated by use of the GDP deflator index shown in the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  The figures exclude community industry (included under the heading "Youth Training" in the public expenditure White Paper), evaluation, research and development and marketing.

  This information is not available by standard regions.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all of the changes to youth training for the year 1990–91 and the implications for(a) the number of planned entrants, (b) the level of expenditure, (c) the duration of trainee places and (d) the provision for trainees with special needs.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Youth training will replace YTS nationally from 29 May. Compared with YTS, the main changes are:except for young people with special difficulties, all young people on the programme are to be offered training

  101
  programmes capable of securing for them qualifications at or equivalent to the second level of qualifications in the framework established by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications;
  a greater emphasis on training at craft and technician levels;
  improved job finding;
  greater flexibility concerning eligibility, duration of training and funding of training providers.

  Youth training will, of course, be delivered by the training and enterprise councils as they come into operation. In 1990–91, 260,000 young people are expected to join youth training. Planned Exchequer funding is set at £907 million in 1990–91—this figure includes community industry expenditure.

  Duration of training will be more flexible than was the case with YTS and will depend upon the time needed by the young person to acquire the skills and the recognised vocational qualifications which are contained in the young person's training plan.

  Training and enterprise councils will be expected to ensure that the Government's guarantee of a suitable training place for every school leaver without a job continues to be met. The councils will also be expected to ensure suitable, quality training provision for young people who have disabilities or other significant training needs.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the details of the agreements made with the first 10 training and enterprise councils and, in particular, the arrangements for the delivery of employment training and youth training.

  Mr. Eggar
  The arrangements for the first 10 TECs, including those for employment and youth training, are given force by the TEC operating agreement, a copy of which is available in the Library. The details of delivery are to be found in the plans for each TEC. Summaries of plans are being prepared and will be placed in the Library on publication within three months following the plans coming into operation.

  Quasi-religious Cults
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on the inclusion in publications of his Department and its associated agencies of advertising or promotional material for companies linked with quasi-religious cults; and if he will make a statement on the appearance in the Training Agency's open learning map of London of material promoting the activities of Programmes Training Ltd.

  Mr. Eggar
  The open learning map of London published by the Training Agency provides basic details of nearly 100 organisations producing open learning materials or providing open learning. Programmes Training Ltd. is one of these. The map includes a statement which makes it clear that inclusion of an organisation does not imply Training Agency endorsement of those organisations or a recommendation of their products.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on the provision by the Training Agency of grants to companies sending 102
  employees on courses provided by companies associated with quasi-religious cults; and what sums of money have been expended by the Training Agency on grants relating to courses run by Programmes Training Ltd.

  Mr. Eggar
  The provision of local training grants to companies sending employees on courses ended in March 1989 with the introduction of business growth training.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information his Department collects on the activities of religious and quasi-religious cults in the field of employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. Our policy is that proposals for employment training which could be used either directly or indirectly to promote religious views cannot be accepted for support.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of whether the recent outbreaks of violence in Britain will influence the number of tourists visiting the United Kingdom this summer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The British Tourist Authority does not believe that these events will significantly influence the number of tourists visiting Great Britain.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Health and Safety Commission concerning the need for further resources for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received from the Health and Safety Commission a draft of its latest plan of work and will be discussing resources with the commission in the forthcoming public expenditure review. Its judgment on the resources required for its work will be considered in that context.

  Tributyltin Oxide
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what uses are still permitted for the biocide TBT; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides is currently finalising its review of tributyltin oxide (TBTO) and a statement will be issued shortly relating to the approval of pesticides containing TBTO. Currently TBTO is approved as the active ingredient in a variety of pesticide products including wood preservatives and anti-fouling products. The ACP has recently commenced work on other tributyltin compounds used in surface biocides and wood preservatives.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent storage of pesticides is subject to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Pesticides within the scope of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards (CIMAH) Regulations 1984 are those which:
  103

  (i) are listed in schedule 2 to the regulations and are kept in isolated storage above specified threshold quantities; or

  (ii) meet the indicative criteria set out in schedule 1, or are listed in schedule 3 and are kept in quantities above specified thresholds, where the storage is associated with a process operation subject to the regulations.

  An amendment to the CIMAH regulations is currently in preparation in order to implement the second amending directive (88/610/EEC) to the "Seveso" directive (82/501/ EEC). This will broaden the scope of CIMAH so that among other things it will have greater application to the storage of pesticides.

  COSH Regulations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what number and percentage of employers have completed their workplace assessments as required by section 6 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988.
  104
  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 20 April 1990]: There is no requirement under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations to notify to the Health and Safety Executive the completion of the assessments required under those regulations. The information requested is not therefore available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give(a) the number of prosecutions, (b) the average fine and (c) the number of improvement and prohibition notices issued to date under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 20 April 1990]: These regulations did not become operative until October 1989. Consequently the information requested, relating to the 1989–90 statistical year, is not yet available.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Education Reform Act: Opting Out
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many schools have opted out of local authority control since the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has approved 36 of the 47 proposals for grant-maintained status which have so far reached him for decision. More schools have now been approved for grant-maintained status than the number of secondary schools in over half of English LEAs. Some 18 schools were in being last September and there are now 28 such schools. A further eight will open in September and a further 12 proposals have been published and will reach Ministers for decision in a few weeks' time. A further five more proposals are awaited following parental ballots which have gone in favour of grant-maintained status. In total ballots have taken place in 84 schools, of whch 64 have voted in favour of grant-maintained status and 20 have voted against.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which gave many useful figures. Is she aware that the Shadow Secretary of Education and Science in another place has declared that a future Labour Government would abolish grant-maintained schools? That would thus rob parents of the choice of grant-maintained education for their children.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yesterday I heard the Shadow Secretary for Education declare that that was the intention of the Labour Party. However, it would be difficult to square with the idea that people should have a choice in these matters. We would certainly oppose any denial of choice.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a non-political question. Can she give us a geographical breakdown of where these schools which have opted out are?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, not without notice. However, the information regarding which schools have opted out and where they are situated is available. I can send the noble Lord a list of the schools if he wishes it.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the track record of the 20 or so grant-maintained schools that are already up and running; is extremely good and that they are popular with parents? Can she give some indication of the
310
extent to which these grant-maintained schools are oversubscribed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is of course early days yet but certainly all the signs are encouraging. It is right to say that in every single case applications for places at the grant-maintained schools are substantially greater than in previous years. In most cases applications have increased by 40 or 50 per cent.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, is it not the case that a great majority, if not all, of the schools which have opted out of local authority control were threatened with closure, and that is the main reason for their decision?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is not the case. It is certainly true that some of the schools which have opted out have been threatened with amalgamation or closure, but only 40 per cent. of the 36 schools which have been approved for opting out were scheduled for closure by their LEAs at the time of the parental ballot. Of those schools only three of the 18 schools where ballots have been held but where decisions have not yet been taken were scheduled for closure at the time of the ballots.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Government would like to see parents sending their children to the school of their choice. Where that choice may be inhibited or prevented by lack of funds for travel or fees, do the Government intend to help such parents who wish to make a choice but who will need extra money to fulfil it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the principle of choice is a real one, but as regards giving every single child in the country the finance to attend the school of his parents' choice, within certain constraints parents have the widest possible practicable choice. However, specific rules are set down as regards providing transport for pupils. It is not open to all children to have transport to any school of their parents' choice.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it not a fact that under the grant-maintained schools finance regulations 1990 grant-maintained schools are likely to receive 15 to 26 per cent. more in financial terms than if they had remained LEA maintained schools under local financial management?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct in that assumption. The 15 per cent. figure that she mentioned refers to central costs for running education. When a school becomes grant-maintained, it receives a percentage of its bureaucratic costs from the authority. On average that amounts to about 15 per cent. of its direct running costs.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the area of Tameside in Greater Manchester where I live, only one school has opted out of local authority control? That school in Audenshaw has received over £½ million in direct

311
grant from the Government for the current financial year whereas the rest of the schools in Tameside have received some £1-2 or £1-4 million in total. Does not the Minister consider that that clearly indicates some form of bribery for schools to opt out when they receive such preferential financial treatment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not accept that this matter represents a form of bribery. I know that the grant-maintained sector, which is growing all the time, obtains a proportion of the capital moneys which are available to schools. Many schools which are not grant-maintained will have received large sums of money, such as the sum mentioned by the noble Lord. I cannot comment specifically on the case of Audenshaw except to say that the school is proving a great success and is very popular with the children within that area.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I think that I heard the noble Baroness say that the basis for grant-maintained schools was the exercise of choice by parents. Will the noble Baroness tell noble Lords what view the Government take when that choice is exercised on the basis of racial prejudice?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be precipitate of me to make a statement before the Parliamentary Question is answered later today in another place. However, I can say that the choice of school to which to send their children is one that should be exercised fully by all parents. I am not prepared to comment specifically as to whether or not that choice is made on the basis of race. I believe that the principle of being able to choose the school to which one sends one's children should be upheld so far as is practicable.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not like to press the point and I was not aware of a Question on the subject. However, I asked the noble Baroness point blank to take a view on the exercise of racial prejudice. Am I right in thinking from her answer that the Government do not care in the slightest whether or not parents choose to send their children to particular schools on the basis of racial prejudice?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is not an interpretation that I accept. If parents do not wish their child to go to a particular school, for whatever reason —and it may be that they do not have to give a reason for choosing a school though I prefer to think of it as a positive rather than a negative choice in favour of a particular school —then I believe that that choice should be upheld. The alternative would be to legislate for parents not to make a choice and to have a category of reasons for doing so.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Baroness is saying, is she not, that the Government are prepared to sustain such a choice made on racial grounds?
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not say that. It is not a good interpretation of what I said.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness David: My Lords, do the Government agree that taking grant-maintained status lifts the "dead hand" of a local education authority from the life of a school—a statement with which the Secretary of State for Education said in the other place he agreed? That seems a very unfortunate thing for him to have said.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe very sincerely that it frees schools from the dead hand of local authorities. I have spent a good deal of my time in committees dealing with operational matters affecting schools. Schools should not have to wait for a local education authority committee to determine operational matters affecting them. It should be for the school head, staff, governors and parents to make operational decisions.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, has the Minister heard, as I have, that in the case of the grant-maintained schools the dead hand of the local authority is replaced by the dead hand of the Department of Education and Science?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the thrust of the Education Reform Act is to pass operational decision-making to school level. I support that. I believe that there are some very real examples of the effect of the dead hand of the local authority. I prefer to see the local authority working alongside schools, being supportive and advising but not becoming involved in the operation of the schools.

North Wales: Storm Damage Assistance
2.46 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What financial assistance has so far been made available to Towyn and other northern Wales coastal areas in connection with recent storm and flood damage.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already announced that the Bellwin scheme of special financial assistance will apply to all eligible expenditure incurred by local authorities in dealing with this emergency. Exceptionally, grant will be paid at a rate of 85 per cent.
Her Majesty's Government have also made a contribution of £150,000 to the disaster funds. This is the first time that such a contribution has been made to funds for disasters that did not involve loss of life. The European Community has donated the sum of £111,500.
In addition, special assistance is being given by my right honourable friend to farmers affected.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the help that has already been given, which has been greatly appreciated. However, is the Minister not aware that, apart from the fact that there was no loss of life, this particular area of Wales was struck by a calamity of enormous dimensions? While the Minister has said that the Government have applied the Bellwin scheme does he accept that the Bellwin scheme, admirable though it is, is in no way sufficient to meet the needs of those affected by such an incident? Is he aware, for example, that before the local authority could benefit from the Bellwin scheme it had to raise £800,000 of its own money? Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Wales to try to pump money into the area in order to avoid the need for the local authority to find that £800,000? Will he ask his right honourable friend to make that money available immediately because the need is urgent and great?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord fully appreciates the extent of the help that has been given. The grant of 85 per cent. of the emergency expenditure which will be provided under the Bellwin formula is more in percentage terms than is usually provided under that formula. It is likely to amount to between £4 million and £5 million, depending on precisely what the expenditure turns out to be. I do not believe that that is an inconsiderable contribution; nor is the contribution to the disaster funds to which I also referred.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while I appreciate the assistance that has been given by the Government and other sources, does the noble Lord not agree that this was a major tragedy affecting several thousand people and more than 3,000 properties and that 5,000 people were evacuated from their homes and put into emergency centres? Would he agree with me that a very warm tribute is due to the local authorities, the police and voluntary organisations for the magnificent way in which they responded to what was a major crisis?
Secondly, can the Minister say how many people are still in emergency centres in the area? What is the final estimate of the cost of damage? Would he not agree that it is far in excess of any estimate under the Bellwin formula or any other assistance from the EC —namely, in the region of £8 million? Will he say what further assistance the Government will give to try to resolve that great problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree with the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. It was an appalling catastrophe for the area concerned and the emergency services responded splendidly. If I may say so, I think that the Government responded splendidly too.
The local authorities estimate their expenditure at something in the order of £5 million, although it is too early to produce a precise estimate because some of the work is not yet complete, as the noble Lord will be aware. The Government have undertaken, in accordance with the Bellwin formula, to provide no
314
less than 85 per cent. of that expenditure and, in addition, have made the other specific contributions to which I referred. I also referred earlier to the special help that we have provided to some farmers, particularly those whose land was affected by salt water. I understand that that land needs special treatment to bring it back into proper use.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, let me clarify the position for the sake of the people of the area. Am I right in understanding that, under the Bellwin formula, if the total estimated cost is in the region of £5 million, in effect 85 per cent. of that sum will be found to assist the area? Is that the position?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, in so far as the expenditure to which the noble Lord referred falls within the Bellwin definition.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord respond to the question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition regarding the number of people who have been able to return to their homes? My understanding—perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—is that only 50 per cent. of people are as yet back in their homes. Is he further aware that difficulties are arising for those people who are only partly covered by insurance? Those who are not covered by insurance appear to be able to obtain money from the local authorities while those who are partly but not fully covered are unable to obtain anything. Will he comment on that point?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall deal with all the points. I apologise for not answering the point raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I am advised that about 500 people are still in temporary accommodation following the events of February and that work clearly still needs to be done on the houses belonging to those people before they can return to them. As I think is well known, many of those living in that part of the country are elderly and retired people who, for obvious reasons, choose to live in bungalows. Bungalows are particularly subject to flooding when such events occur. The people concerned have therefore been very adversely affected. The noble Lord is quite right. There were rather more people than we should have wished who were not adequately covered by insurance, either with no insurance or inadequate insurance. The special disaster contributions to which I referred will be specifically aimed at helping those people.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify the point that I raised? I still do not understand his answer to the second part of my question. The county council officer who is dealing with the matter and to whom I spoke said that it was necessary for the council, through rates or a precept, to raise £800,000 before it qualifies for the Bellwin formula. Is that correct? If it is correct, will the noble Lord waive the requirement given the urgent situation in the area?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that would mean raising the Bellwin percentage to 100 per cent. from 85 per cent. As I understand it, under the Bellwin

315
formula, local authorities must provide the product of a penny rate from their own resources before they qualify for Bellwin payments, as the noble Lord rightly said. I believe that that is a right and proper arrangement. All prudent local authorities should make some provision for disasters of that kind, although it is recognised that they cannot be expected to make 100 per cent. provision. That is why the Bellwin formula exists.

Unleaded Petrol
2.56 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the most recent figure available for sales of unleaded petrol.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, unleaded petrol sales, indicated by Customs and Excise figures for the amount of unleaded petrol cleared from bonded warehouses, were 786 million litres in the month up to 14th March. That represents 30-6 per cent. of total petrol sales.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative reply. Will he say how that figure compares with sales of unleaded petrol two years ago and what reduction in the amount of lead in the atmosphere has taken place since 1989?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the uptake of unleaded petrol in the past 18 months has risen from 2 per cent. to the figure that I quoted to my noble friend; namely, some 30-6 per cent. I do not have the figure since 1989, but since 1985-88—these are the most recent figures for the amount of lead in the atmosphere—there has been a fall of some 53 per cent.
Lord Mcintosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to dispel the cynical rumour that, when a satisfactory level of unleaded petrol has been achieved, the excise duty will be put up again?
Lord Hesketh: Far from that, my Lords, the recent Budget increased the differential for the third successive time, which I am sure shows the Chancellor's intention.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, given that all new cars are manufactured to operate on unleaded petrol, will my noble friend say what percentage of the existing vehicle fleet in this country is capable of being altered to take unleaded petrol?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, a substantial number of vehicles can be converted. They are all to be found listed in a copy of Adjust to Unleaded. It is a substantial list. So, if my noble friend finds it acceptable, I shall post him a copy.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me how many garages throughout the United Kingdom are now able to sell unleaded petrol?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, out of some 20,100 stations, approximately 18,200 now sell unleaded petrol.

Council House Building: Finance
2.58 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government;
Whether they propose to permit local authorities to invest as much of their capital receipts as they wish in building new low-cost homes to let.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, any government has to control gross public spending, including spending from receipts, in order to regulate the national economy. Allowing those local authorities who happen to have a lot of receipts to spend more would mean cutting expenditure in areas of more acute need. The aim of our reforms of the use of receipts is to enable us more effectively to target resources on those areas in greatest need.
Lord Jay: My Lords, what possible good reason can there be for preventing authorities from using their own funds to build low-cost housing, which everyone agrees is one of our most acute social needs at present?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that, with his experience, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is more aware than I am of the importance for any government to control the gross figure for public expenditure. It is well worth remembering that the latest available figure for the current level of local authority housing debt is some £29-54 billion.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the Government lay greater emphasis on saving money and reducing costs than on reducing the massive number of homeless families in this country?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is aware of the Government's most recent initiative of increasing expenditure for homelessness by some £250 million. He will also be aware that the Government are increasing the expenditure by housing associations to some £138 million in 1991-92.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the arguments that the Government always used for selling council houses was that selling them would enable local authorities to build more houses for rent with the proceeds of those sales? What has happened to that argument?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, 25 per cent. of the receipts are still available to do exactly that. However, as a result of capital reforms that we introduced in last year's Bill, we have been able

317
substantially to increase HIP allocations from a third to two thirds on the basis of targeting. The provision of housing and the requirements for the provision of housing vary greatly between regions. That is why we have been able to improve the targeting to those areas which need it most.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the Minister give us advice that is a little more sensible? Is he aware that thousands of young couples who want to get married but who wish to avoid unnecessary expenditure in buying a house are desperately searching for houses to let? Does he agree that there is a shortage of such accommodation throughout the country, that the situation is becoming critical and that something should be done about it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in recent years the Government have increased finance beyond the traditional figures of local authority provision and that provided by housing associations. We believe that the changes that took place in the Budget with regard to the business expansion scheme will provide in the first 12 months a further 7,000 units to be available under assured tenancies. Those are extremely important. At the moment there are only two types of housing. We have to follow the success that has been achieved in the United States, West Germany and France, which has a socialist administration. There, 30 per cent. of the population are in private rented accommodation. That was destroyed in this country over a period of 50 years.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Southwark Council is owed £32 million in rent arrears.? I assume that some action will be taken to get back some of that money. Can the Government confirm that the council will be able to spend the money on new housing?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the rules are different for revenue and capital. As I pointed out earlier, if there were a reduction of debt, which relates to the 75 per cent. that is held back, that would improve the financial position of the council.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the true Answer lies in the replies that have quite recently been given by Ministers from the Dispatch Box to the effect that the Government no longer consider local authorities as bulk builders of accommodation to let? Is he aware that the Government's target of 80,000 such properties to be built over the next three years, 17,500 of them in the first 12 months, is already falling short? If my information is correct, that target will be over 2,000 units short. Can he say whether it is true that some of the money allocated has more or less been allowed on pawn from the Housing Corporation, which now finds itself in extreme difficulty? Does he agree that it looks as though the whole programme will literally be off gear and well below what the Government intended? In view of the urgent need will the Government allow local authorities with capital receipts to get on with building this type of housing?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government have no desire other than to improve the quality and supply of housing. As the noble Lord will know, and I have said it before in this House, the Government see the local authorities as enablers in housing. They are spending very considerable sums of money but they also wish to broaden the spread of housing. They are also desirous that the money spent on housing should produce quality rather than result in the tragedies —because that is the only way that one can describe them —seen in some of the great cities of this country.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to come back so quickly. Only a few weeks ago at the Dispatch Box the noble Lord said—and other Ministers have repeated quite categorically—that the Government no longer see local authorities as building houses in bulk for letting to people at the bottom end of the social scale. Is that true or not?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, local authorities already own a vast store of local authority housing. The noble Lord asks me how we see the future. The future that we see is one where there is a spread; one in which there is a ladder that goes from the simplest to the less simple accommodation, and also across a spectrum of cost, so that people can have an aspiration which can be satisfied to rent a house that is other than an ordinary local authority dwelling.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that the Government are aware of a need for far more low cost housing? There are many people like myself—and others have also said this—who see such a need. Are Her Majesty's Government awake to the necessity to meet the need for low cost housing for the many people who desperately require and wish for it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are certainly aware of the need. That is why they introduced the special increase of some £250 million for the homeless. There is also another factor. If we consider rural housing, where there are equally difficult problems although of a different nature, it is clear that one of the most difficult things to obtain is planning permission in order to provide that accommodation.
Lord Jay: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be better to have a little more consumer choice and allow local authorities to spend their own money as they wish?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are entirely in favour of consumer choice but they do not believe that the local authorities' money is in fact their money; it is the taxpayers' money.

Pucklechurch Remand Centre: Disturbances
3.5 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Private Notice Question, of which I have

319
given the Government notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the disturbances at Her Majesty's prison at Pucklechurch.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, at about seven o'clock yesterday evening an officer in the male part of the Pucklechurch Remand Centre, which housed some 125 male young offender remand prisoners, was overpowered and his keys taken. He was quickly rescued by other staff but inmates meanwhile used the keys to unlock other accommodation. Control of the male wings was temporarily lost.
Contingency plans were activated and staff were drafted in from other establishments in the South West. Police were deployed outside the perimeter and there have been no escapes. Fire and ambulance services were also in attendance.
At the same time the 44 female inmates who were held in a separate part of the remand centre were moved out for their own safety. They are being moved to Holloway after being held initially in Crown Court and police cells locally.
Prison officers regained control of parts of the centre during the course of the night and morning and within the past couple of hours control of the whole of the remand centre has been re-established and all prisoners are now back in detention.
My right honourable friend has called for a report on the scale of the injuries which were incurred. I understand that there was no particular information suggesting that such an incident was being planned, nor is there any information at present to indicate why it took place. The disturbance will fall within the ambit of Lord Justice Woolf s terms of reference.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Does he agree that this appears to be yet another copycat incident following the disturbances at Strangeways Prison, Manchester? Perhaps I may ask him a number of specific questions. I realise that the governor and his staff have only just recovered possession. How much accommodation at Pucklechurch appears to have been lost and therefore necessitates the removal of a significant number of the prison's population to other establishments?
Secondly, is he aware that the transfer of over 40 women prisoners from this establishment to Holloway will further worsen the very unsatisfactory conditions that exist at Holloway? Perhaps I may say that we are all greatly relieved that possession of the prison has quickly been regained by the staff and that not many members of staff appear to have been injured. Nevertheless, will he ensure that those who have been injured receive—I am sure from all Members of the House —a message to wish them a speedy recovery?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that on the face of it it looks as though this is a copycat incident. He aked me how much accommodation has been lost but I cannot tell him
320
that at the moment. He will understand that we have only recently regained control of the premises.
It is perfectly true that if you transfer 44 women to another prison, it is bound to have an effect on the prison population of that establishment. Our hope is that it will be as short-lived as possible.
I cannot tell the noble Lord how many people have been injured. I think it is fairly certain that some people have been injured, probably both prison officers and prisoners. However, I cannot give him the information that he requires because I am afraid I do not have it. I shall certainly ensure that the prison officers who have been injured receive the message which the noble Lord wished me to convey.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will take it as understood that we on these Benches decry rioting and behaviour of that kind at any prison. We certainly join in with the sympathy that has been expressed for prison officers who have to undergo that kind of treatment yet again. Does the Minister agree that since the Strangeways incident rioting has taken place in the following prisons—I regret having to read out the list but the House ought to be aware of it: Brixton, Bristol, Cardiff, Castington, Dartmoor, Hull, Kirkham, Lindholme, Long Lartin, Manchester, Pentonville, Swansea, Stoke Heath and Verne? Without claiming that my observations were anything other than common sense, perhaps I may remind the Minister of the words that I ventured to use on 5th April on the matter of Strangeways Prison. As I said from these Benches on the occasion of the last Statement:
"My fear is that copycat episodes may occur in various prisons around the country. I hope that what I have ventured to say about flexibility and taking into account warnings and the possibility of copycat exercises, will result in adequate staffing arrangements being made to ensure that the dreadful events that have occurred recently do not occur elsewhere". [Official Report, 5/4/90; col. 1521.]
Is the Minister aware that in an interview on Radio 4 at one o'clock today a member of the prison visitors at Pucklechurch, a Mrs. Cooper, said that there was understaffing at Pucklechurch? Will the Government please realise that it is a crisis situation and that the one thing that they can do about it is to ensure that there is adequate staffing at prisons in order to deal with our huge prison population? On any basis it is the largest in Europe. Turkey has even beaten us now. Will the Government realise that we have reached a state of crisis and that they must have a policy with regard to it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that he decries rioting as much as anyone else. I wholly understand that. He repeated his fear, which he expressed some time ago, that "copycats" may occur elsewhere. That is one of the dangers that we all have to recognise. Once something happens it is always possible that there will be something else. The noble Lord referred to the staffing level. I did not hear Radio 4 at one o'clock because I was preparing myself for the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, might ask me. I did not suppose that that would be one.
There has been a very considerable increase in staffing. The total number of prison officers has been

321
increased by over 3,000 in the past three years. The complement at Pucklechurch should have been 122; there were 113. Clearly all these matters will have to be taken into considerable account. It would be irresponsible of me to go into them in great detail now. However, the terms of reference of Lord Justice Woolf are to inquire into the events leading up to the serious disturbances in Her Majesty's Prison at Manchester and thereafter in other prison establishments in England and Wales. Clearly this outbreak, like the others, will fall within the terms of reference of Lord Justice Woolf He will obviously wish to take into account whether or not there have been "copycats", and, if so, why; and he may make such suggestions as he thinks fit. However, it is clearly a very serious matter.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with regard to policy, should we not remember that several years ago the Government started on the largest prison building programme of this century? Indeed, it was even larger than the one under Mr. R. A. Butler 30 years ago. Successive Conservative Governments, with the aid of legislation by Parliament, have introduced a policy of non-custodial sentences. Is it not right to bear in mind in favour of the Government that their policies have been on the right lines and that this is just an unfortunate series of events which has overtaken them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. It is an unfortunate set of circumstances but none the more serious for that. However, he is right to draw attention to what the Government have done. Out of a total of 28 new prisons in the programme upon which we are embarking—which is the largest prison building programme this century—eight new prisons are already opened, 14 are at various stages of design and construction and two are planned for building to begin in 1991 and 1993. That leaves a balance of four prisons whose locations and commencement date for construction have yet to be decided.
The building programme has produced 2,000 places over the past two years and is set to add a further 1,660 places in the current year, 1990-91; 7,000 places are currently under construction at new establishments.
The expenditure on the prison service rose by 58 per cent. in real terms between 1978 and 1988. The current financial provision for 1989-90 is for £ 1,140 million, which represents a 20 per cent. increase in real terms over the 1988-89 outturn of £902 million. A very great deal is therefore being done.
I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining and reminding the House that, even though such expenditure is made, it cannot necessarily deny the possibility of such outbreaks taking place.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I understand that these are all remand prisoners. That means that none has been sentenced and some have not been tried. Will the noble Earl tell us how many bail hostel places are available in the area? I am sure that the noble
322
Lord will agree that the less one concentrates such people in one place the better it is for the maintenance of order. If some of those people could have been distributed in bail hostels, we might have avoided the outbreak.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right. I cannot tell her how many bail hostel places there are in that area. However, over the next three years 500 new bail hostel places are being provided which ought to help to allay the situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, following my noble friend's constructive remarks about the series of disquieting outbreaks that has taken place in a large number of prisons, is it not also significant that the policy of a number of governors in relation to the outbreaks has been different, and that that is a matter which is causing some concern—it may be unnecessarily—among members of the public? Will the policies of the governors towards outbreaks of various kinds—and inevitably the response can be different for various reasons—be a matter of which Lord Justice Woolf will take account in his inquiry?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that will certainly fall within the terms of Lord Justice Woolfs remit. It will be up to him to determine how to translate those terms of reference. The noble Lord is right in saying that different positions and different places require different treatment. But Lord Justice Woolfs remit is to consider the cause of all these outbreaks, what could have been done and what should be done in the future to prevent them. Obviously such consideration will fall within his terms of reference.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, in view of the figures that the noble Earl has given us about the extra number of places in our prisons, is he satisfied that the prison service is taking on and encouraging a sufficient number of prison officers to staff the prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that we do not enter into a general debate on prisons. However, I can assure my noble friend that a great many more prison officers have been taken on recently and it is intended that more be taken on in the near future.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Earl may have mentioned this point but I should like to be certain about it. Will representatives of the Prison Officers' Association give evidence to the inquiry?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the answer. I assume that if the association wishes to make any representations it will contact Lord Justice Woolf and indicate that fact.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I must repeat the comment which has been made a thousand times by everyone interested in the subject. We believe that the Government are spending far too much money on building new prisons and far too little money in putting right the appalling conditions in existing prisons.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is the conundrum in which we perpetually find ourselves. Not long ago the noble Lord was giving the Government stick for having an insufficient number of prisons. The noble Lord will not ask me to quote Hansard; if I have misquoted him I apologise. However, many noble Lords have previously said that we have not spent enough money on providing new prisons. We have spent a great deal of money doing so. I agree with the noble Lord that, as the prison population is falling, the time may have come to deflect some of the anticipated expenditure on new buildings towards refurbishing the old buildings.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that among the public there is a general feeling that the prisons are now in a state of sheer anarchy; that we are a laughing stock abroad; and that the situation has been brought about by the timorous incompetence of the present Government? They appear to be afraid to act in the face of rioting prisoners. Can the Minister tell the House how many more riots we must have and in which prisons before the Government will take proper action to bring them and the situation at Strangeways to an end?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am surprised by the noble Lord's response. He said that the Government have been timorous and incompetent.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord has repeated that—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, I did.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord has now repeated his view for the second time. I do not accept it in the slightest. He knows full well that the best way of dealing with the matter is to improve the prison situation and the prisons and to increase the number of prison officers. That we have done.
I believe that the noble Lord wishes to see a right battle royal in the prisons. That is not the course which the Government have thought it appropriate to take. There are those who believe that such a course should have been taken. The Government took the view that in order to avoid bloodshed and damage which may otherwise occur it is right to try to bring the disruptions to an end as peacefully as possible.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Stoddart will forgive me if I dissociate myself from the remarks that he made with great sincerity but not with great wisdom.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I read to the House details of the copycat incidents which have taken place. Are the Government saying that before we have a policy for dealing with the critical situation we must wait for Lord Justice Woolf's report? Do not the Government have every annual report of all chief inspectors of prisons detailing the terrible
324
situations there? If we must wait for the report before a policy is founded upon known facts and experience will the Minister say that it is expected before the next list I read is double the length?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has made a serious point; he read out an impressive but disagreeable list. Until the incidents at Strangeways the situation was improving. There was increased capacity in the prisons; a reduction in overcrowding; and the re-establishment of punishment within the community. The number of prisoners in a cell was being reduced and during the past 10 years we spent £1,000 million on capital expenditure. All that was producing results, but now we have experienced the recent fearful events.
In the short term I have the greatest confidence in the professionalism of members of the prison service. All prison governors are now alert to the possibility that other incidents may occur. In the long term we look to the report of Lord Justice Woolf. However, I should be wrong in giving the noble Lord or the House the impression that we shall wait for the report before taking any measures. It is up to each governor to assess the situation in his prison and to take any necessary action. I cannot tell the noble Lord whether that will result in more outbreaks.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in view of the critical situation, I asked the Minister when the report is expected to be published.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord when the report will be published.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a substantial number of prisoners are still being locked up for 23 hours a day, including those in brand new prisons? In the circumstances is it surprising that the frustration that builds up among prisoners—in particular among young men on remand who should never be in prison in the first place—leads to riots? When will the Government do something to improve prison regimes and to reduce the number of people who should never be in prison in the first place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are in danger of the Statement on Pucklechurch Remand Centre turning into a debate on the prison system as a whole. I have tried to explain what has been done and the fact that the Government are seized of the real problems. We have done a great deal but now is not the time to debate the genuine concerns of a general nature about the prison service.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear! Next business.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can the Government make a protest to the media which is making heroes of such prisoners and causing copycat outbreaks in other prisons? There must be some way in which we can stop the nonsense which we see on our screens and read in our newspapers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, simple questions are always the most difficult to answer. I am sure that

325
the noble Baroness knows it would be improper for the Government to request any form of censorship in the media. The noble Baroness shakes her head but that is what she is asking for. The Government cannot ask the media not to report what they believe to be of national interest. However, many people would be highly gratified if the media would stop reporting such incidents for the reasons which the noble Baroness has in mind. Others may consider it to be a restriction of the flow of information and against the national interest.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who for many years had the responsibility of dealing with the prisons regret the long nature of these exchanges and the tone which appears to suggest that anyone in any particular party can be in a position to throw stones at anyone else about the conduct of the prison system? I feel intensely humble about what I tried to do; I believe that my predecessors and successors as Home Secretary feel the same. I hope that we can conduct our affairs as regards the prisons and these dangerous situations in the knowledge that we are all guilty. What is happening today is a result of this country's failure as regards prisons not for 10 or 20 years, but over 30, 50 or 60 years. It would be better if we acknowledged that and tried to deal with the situation together on that basis.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw who was a most distinguished Home Secretary. He is right in saying that everyone connected with the prison service feels humble about what they can do to correct the situation. Members of all parties will realise that it is difficult and that we can only do our best. It is too easy to say what should have been done and what is left to be done. One docs not always realise what has been done to improve the situation. I agree with my noble friend in saying that none of us can be proud of the position now or in the past.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl's last two sentences. Although understanding the reasons for the question by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, some of us would be very concerned indeed were any form of urgent timetable to be applied to Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry. Clearly he has a number of major issues at which to look and I believe it would be a profound mistake were he to be pressed for even the most admirable of reasons into delivering an early report.
Secondly, although the noble Earl has rightly related most of his replies to the situation at Pucklechurch, in the light of some things which have been said both here and outside the House, is he aware that many of us have great admiration for Mr. O'Friel, the governor of Strangeways, who has had to deal with an immensely difficult situation and has handled himself admirably despite some exceptionally unfair attacks by the media?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that it would be a
326
pity if Lord Justice Woolf were to find himself under any specific pressure to come up with a quick answer. It is important to get the right answer when it comes.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks about the governor of Strangeways. The governor has been in a particularly difficult and uncomfortable position. He has been under the spotlight of the media and has conducted himself with great dignity. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendment be now considered. —(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to HL Bill 35 as first printed by the Lords, The Commons reasons and amendment are printed in italics.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 18, at end insert:
"(7) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament; and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution requiring the draft to be amended the Secretary of State shall withdraw the draft and shall prepare a draft in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.
(8) No resolution shall be passed by either House of Parliament under subsection (7) above in respect of a draft after the expiration of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft was laid before that House; but for the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(9) If, on the expiry of the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (8) above, no resolution requiring amendment of the regulations has been passed by either House of Parliament, the darft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(10) Where the Secretary of State withdraws a draft under subsection (7) above, he shall lay an amended draft before Parliament and the amended draft shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
2 The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason —
Because it would unacceptably delay the implementation of the student loans scheme.
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
2A Earl Russell 2A Earl Russell rose to move, That the House do insist on their amendment numbered 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I first tabled this amendment because it appeared to a number of noble Lords on both sides of the House that the form of this Bill was somewhat unusual. I remember very well my noble friend Lord Addington saying in the debate on the humble Address that when he first collected the Bill from the Printed Paper Office he

327
thought that the middle had fallen out of it. The House may recall also the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on the same day and those of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, on 21st December.
Those remarks concerned the form rather than the substance of the Bill. In the long term one might be more concerned about defects in form than defects in substance. If this House should pass a bad Bill, it would not be the first time in the history of Parliament that that had been done. Also, I fear that there will be many more. However, if Parliament passes a Bill which is defective in form, it is setting a precedent which may be harmful to the drafting of many future Bills. A bad precedent may be worse than a bad Bill.
As my honourable friend Mr. Beith remarked, this Bill consists of almost nothing but the power to make regulations. That fact inevitably restricts any parliamentary contribution to the necessary revision and scrutiny of any such measure.
I know that there has been improvement in that respect. I warmly welcome the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whose success delighted me. That ensures that Parliament will have the power to debate regulations made under this Bill. However, although I welcome that, with respect, it is not enough by itself. This House is a revising Chamber. Its revising functions are properly exercised by means of amendment. That is the jewel in the crown of the powers of this House. In normal circumstances this House does not amend regulations.
Therefore, we have here an exceptional Bill and an amendment moved in the opinion that the Bill was exceptional and because it was exceptional. The Secretary of State has made some objections to this procedure. He pointed out that numerous amendments had been tabled and debated at great length. Of course, that is true. However, with respect, I believe that it was because the Bill was so difficult to amend that the process took so long. I am vividly reminded of the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on Second Reading about the difficulty of making amendments purchase on the slippery surfaces of this Bill because in many cases what people wanted to amend was not even mentioned in the Bill itself. Noble Lords tried to table amendments to get at a point at all sorts of different places in the Bill. Therefore, not for the first time in the history of Parliament, attempts to save time resulted in taking up more of it. Therefore the fact that a lot of amendments were tabled does not prove that the Bill was in a satisfactory form to be amended.
The Government also say —and I am sure that we shall hear it again in a few moments—that they have committed themselves to monitoring the progress of the legislation. One must welcome that as far as it goes, but, judging by the repeated promises which we have heard to monitor the Social Security Act 1986, one feels the need to say that monitoring one's own work is usually a rather less searching procedure than having it monitored with assistance from other people.
In fact, if we go on passing Bills like this, that will put the process of parliamentary government into jeopardy. Indeed, it will at least threaten honouring in the breach as well as in the observance the basic principle that in this country the government do not make the law and Parliament does. In this country, we do not have legislation by ministerial decree. It is not enough to have consultation about legislation in the process of debate on regulations under the affirmative resolution procedure, welcome though that is. This House is not a press conference but has revising powers, and they matter.
Of course, it is important to say that powers such as are specified in this amendment should not be used lightly, wantonly or ill-advisedly. They should not be made a general and normal method of scrutinising regulations. There is a proper place for enabling legislation and it must be accepted that, with the passage of time, that place grows. As there is more business, it is inevitable that more will go into regulations.
What many of us deplore is putting, in effect, the body of the Bill into regulations. The point of this amendment is that if the Government put the Bill into regulations, then we may use this procedure in order to treat the regulations as if they were a Bill.
The procedure used in this amendment is laid down on page 546 of Erskine May. It has been there for a long time and has been used in exceptional circumstances when it was felt that there was a need for it. My honourable friend Mr. Beith drew attention to the fact that he had used the powers to amend regulations under the Census Act 1920. A similar procedure is used under the Emergency Powers Act 1920. If your Lordships look at the list drawn up by the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, you will see that there is a clustering of uses of that power, round about the 1920s, when there was a particularly intense concern about the growth of enabling legislation.
In the past year we have heard such concern repeated many times in this House. It seems to me appropriate that as it returns so we should turn to the procedure which is the appropriate way to deal with the matter. It is one of the glories of parliamentary procedure that, like the common law, it tends to produce for each mischief an appropriate remedy. We have here unusual mischief but I believe we have set out in Erskine May a perfectly appropriate remedy and I think that this is a proper occasion for its use.
If we insist on this amendment there will be a number of beneficial effects. As my honourable friend Mr. Beith suggested, it will mean that the regulations are better drafted. Regulations drafted in the knowledge that either House of Parliament may table a Motion to amend them will be drafted with a good deal of care. It is possible, as my honourable friend also pointed out, that some of the amendments could be government amendments. It is not unknown for governments to need to have second thoughts. There has been a need for such thoughts on this Bill. If the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 had been thought of just two weeks later than they were, one could imagine a situation in which Ministers may have been very

329
glad of a power to amend their own regulations. In fact it could have been of considerable convenience to them.
The important point is that if we insist on the amendment we shall be avoiding a future mischief; we shall be avoiding the suggestion that this is a proper way of legislating which can be used in the future. That is a great deal more important than any of the specific provisions in the Bill under discussion. The principle of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation is one of which we should not let go lightly.
There will be some discussion on whether we should insist on an amendment in the face of the opposition of another place. We have done so before. The last time was barely over a year ago with regard to eye tests. It is a power which has been freshly pushed to a Division. It is not a power which has been out of use for any length of time. There is some similarity between the position, functions and powers of this House and those of another place in the early years of the 17th century. The purpose of both Houses is to provide a check on the basic principle of the legitimacy of the constitution. That is a very difficult job; it is also a very necessary one.
The point that power corrupts does not wither by reputation. Power needs to be checked, but that is also very difficult, particularly because our power of parliamentary scrutiny is held by the grant and sufferance of those whom it is designed to check. That means that the powers that we have are as they were spelt out by another place. There are limits within which we must very carefully stay because basically our title to do anything is that the elected Chamber has willed to give us that power. However, so long as it has done so we should have no compunction about exercising that power.
We have a trust for the elected Chamber to revise legislation and ensure that it is properly and democratically conducted. In discharge of that trust we should insist on this amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do insist on their amendment numbered 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2. —(Earl Russell.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Earl. Before attending the House this afternoon I took the opportunity to reread what he said at Report stage when this matter was debated. He referred to the amendment which I moved, which was supported by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and to which the Government agreed. He welcomed it, as I think the whole House did; it was a major improvement to the Bill.
I very much agree with the noble Earl concerning the importance of the House of Lords as an amending Chamber. A great many amendments have been tabled and for a Bill of this length and size a great many have been accepted, not only the one that I moved but the amendment relating to the increase of the access funds, which is of immense value. That reflects great credit on your Lordships' House and
330
the expertise that it brings to these matters. It is therefore right to set this issue in its context.
As the noble Earl also said, the Government have said repeatedly that the legislation will be monitored. I do not think that this is an exact analogy with the Social Security Bill. Social security legislation is vastly wider and more complex. I have no doubt that whatever may or may not be the case we are addressing a very articulate and vocal audience who are concerned with the Bill. They will certainly be able to make their views clear as the legislation is put into effect. We shall then know exactly how it is working out.
There seem to me to be two specific objections to accepting the Motion of the noble Earl to insist on the amendment. The first is that, were the House to amend the regulations and the Bill were to go back to another place, as inevitably it would, we would not know whether another place would agree with the regulations. That would produce a situtation of dispute between the two Houses. I am by no means a constitutional expert, but I am not at all clear as to whether there is any satisfactory way of resolving such a dispute.
However, I suspect that it is the second objection made by another place which is important, that is,
"Because it would unacceptably delay the implementation of the student loans scheme".
The amendment imposes a delay of 40 days during which draft regulations can be made. If then an amendment were to be passed, that too would be subject to 40 days' delay and there could then be another amendment subject to 40 days' delay. That situation could go on indefinitely. I am sure the noble Earl will say that that is not the intention and I do not suggest that it is, but the truth is that that is how it would be seen to work in practice. It would therefore have the effect of negating the Bill altogether.
The noble Earl might like to consider that that would produce considerable constitutional difficulty in the future or on any other legislation. I speak as a former Leader of your Lordships' House when I say that it is very important that the proprieties between this House and another place are carefully maintained. In those circumstances, when your Lordships have already included in the Bill a number of important amendments, to insist on something which will unquestionably lead to delay, even if not indefinite delay, opens up a very major new principle. As the noble Earl indicated, that principle has not been used for 70 years and that suggests that there are very good reasons why it has not been used for 70 years. It could produce severe difficulties between the two Houses.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I did not say that this procedure had not been used for 70 years. It was last used in the Education (Scotland) Act 1962.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg the noble Earl's pardon; I misheard what he said. The fact is that allowing the amendment would be an unfortunate course upon which to embark. I hope, as I am sure he will, that when my noble friend the Leader of the

331
House replies to the debate he will fully set out the constitutional position so that we may be sure about it. I hope that the House does not insist on the amendment; that we stand by the amendment that has been agreed and leave the position as it is.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, there were two powerful reasons which spoke in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Earl that I confess caused me to favour it at the time. The first was that this is in a sense an enabling Bill. The noble Earl has dealt with that cogently today and there is no need to expatiate on it. However, I do not believe that your Lordships' disapprobation of a Bill of this type —a disapprobation that has been clearly voiced in all parts of the House—need be vindicated by this unusual provision which has many disadvantages.
The second reason was that your Lordships accept—or at any rate are said to accept—the convention whereby we do not vote against a statutory instrument. In my view, it is by alteration of that convention, which does not really bear much examination and which is in any case a weak convention, by deciding that your Lordships should exercise your undoubted powers to vote against subordinate legislation, that this matter is best resolved.
In saying that, I do not altogether agree with all the reasons put forward in another place for disagreeing with your Lordships' amendment. I agree that delay would be involved and that is a powerful reason in the way that it was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. However, I venture to disagree that it would lead to an unresolvable conflict between the two Houses. This procedure has been used before. As Erskine May states, a procedure needs to be in each case evolved to resolve any difference between the two Houses.
That was done, for example, on the pre-war India Acts when proceeding through this House by way of a Select Committee and in the other place. The problem is no more difficult than any situation where the two Houses disagree. In the end, if it cannot be resolved in any other way, a joint committee of the two Houses is appointed to argue out the matter.
The other argument on delay, even though in some respects I thought it was exaggerated in the other place, has some cogency. If some other means can be found to meet the point made by the noble Earl then, in my respectful submission, it should be used. That other means is that your Lordships should unhesitatingly, as I said, assume your Lordships' undoubted right to vote against subordinate legislation.
There are a number of reasons why that; convention is not particularly convincing. In the first place, it does not bear much constitutional sense. The proper analogy, surely, is that if your Lordships should vote against subordinate legislation it should, on analogy with the Parliament Act, be open to the other place, after the lapse of one year, to present it again for your Lordships' consideration. That is the correct constitutional analogy.
332
The second reason is that this is a weak convention. Your Lordships know very well that conventions of the constitution, which are far more important in our constitutional system than the legal rules, can vary considerably in strength. For example, there is the convention that has been observed for well over 150 years that noble Lords who are lay people do not interfere with a report of the Appellate Committee. Not even the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip removes his iron fist from his velvet glove to beckon forward a majority to vote down a recommendation of the Appellate Committee which is inimical, as it often can be, to the Government. Nor indeed, for that matter, do Lords of Appeal who have not heard the argument interfere with a recommendation of the Appellate Committee. That is a very powerful convention.
The reason why it is powerful appears from another convention from the other side of the Atlantic. It was a convention from the very start of the United States that the President should not enjoy more than two terms in office. That convention was observed right up to our own time. It was powerful enough to prevent President Grant standing for a third term. However, that convention did not prevent Roosevelt from standing for a third and, indeed, a fourth term. It was vindicated, as any strong convention will be, by subsequent legislative action. The United States Congress subsequently enacted legislation, as your Lordships know, that no President should enjoy more than two terms in office.
A very weak convention was the convention that when a party was defeated at the polls the government should immediately resign. That was entirely consonant with the legal theory of the constitution whereby Parliament is supreme. That was observed right up to the end of the last century. Disraeli and Gladstone both resigned on being defeated at the polls. In other words, they were following the political sovereignty of the electorate. However, in 1923, when there was a hung Parliament, Baldwin met Parliament before resigning. He was defeated in Parliament. It seems to me that if we should have, as is likely, another hung Parliament the Prime Minister of the day would be well justified in meeting Parliament before resigning. In other words, that convention, like the one in question on affirmative resolutions and subordinate legislation in general, so far as your Lordships' voting is concerned is a weak convention to be applied when it is convenient. In fact, it has not been invariably applied.
Your Lordships voted against the Rhodesia sanctions order. It was withdrawn and re-presented in a not very seriously amended form. In my respectful submission this problem that the noble Earl has so cogently identified would be far better dealt with by your Lordships asserting that you are no longer bound by a convention that does not carry any conviction; namely, not to vote against subordinate legislation.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, appeared to concede that when the noble Earl moved his original amendment. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will indicate in his reply that there is no reason why,

333
whenever it is convenient and should your Lordships wish it, your Lordships should not vote against any subordinate legislation that is presented for consideration. That seems to me far more convenient as a means of achieving what the noble Earl wishes to achieve, but I cannot at this stage—however initially attracted I was to it—vote in favour of what he proposes.
4 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, whatever view we take, it seems clear from everything that has been said today that a convention has been developed to regulate procedure in relation to statutory instruments. Over a long period of time there has been a continuous move to prevent the chaos that would result from the creation of different forms of statutory instruments to meet particular situations. The Statutory Instruments Act 1946 made the most determined effort to introduce general provisions for statutory instruments, to promote uniformity of procedure and avert the chaos which might otherwise result.
In order to achieve this generality of practice in dealing with regulations, one of the most important rules is that while each House can, by the appropriate procedure, reject a statutory instrument, it cannot amend it except in rare circumstances where that amendment is authorised by the parent Act.
It is quite clear that power can be taken to do this. The interesting point is that it has very rarely been applied. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained, there was a group of such provisions way back in 1920: the Emergency Powers Act 1920, Section 2(4) which has now been repealed; and, as the noble Earl mentioned, the Census Act 1920, Section 1(2).
It does not seem to me appropriate that this House should use a precedent which has been so rarely applied. We should this afternoon abide by the general principle. The Government have sufficiently recognised the importance of this legislation by agreeing that the regulations shall be subject to the affirmative resolution. Therefore I do not believe that we should precipitate a division of view with the other place by seeking to extend the effect of an affirmative resolution by exceptionally attempting to give both Houses the power to amend these regulations.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, there is no question whatever that we have a right to insist on this amendment. It is within the constitutional position of the House that this should be done. The special reason that we on these Benches take such a strong line on the Bill is the nature of the Bill itself and also the importance of the matter which is left to be dealt with in regulations. Therefore we believe that it is extremely important. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell said, if we are to use our amending powers properly—which is the purpose of this House—we cannot do so in a Bill which contains so little that effective amendment is almost impossible.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, with his great constitutional knowledge, has made it quite clear it is within our powers to do this. As I understand it, his reason for not supporting
334
the amendment was a purely practical one—the problem of delay. Some of us think that this ill thought out provision might be improved by some degree of delay. We have never understood why there was such a tremendous hurry to bring in student loans by October, ill thought out and ill prepared as the legislation has been.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, said, I accept that in his lucid explanation the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has provided us with a second line of defence of the weakness of the convention. If, contrary to what I hope, my noble friend's amendment is not accepted, I put the House on notice now that I have not the slightest doubt that we on these Benches will take advantage of the lead given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to recognise the weakness of the convention and to act accordingly when regulations come.
I am not greatly impressed by the fact that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was accepted, valuable though that amendment was. We must remind ourselves that it applies only to the first round of regulations. That leaves a very great deal still to be settled without parliamentary control by the exercise of executive power. Throughout recent months we have repeatedly complained about the excessive extent to which the Government use regulations where, in our view, primary legislation is required, and therefore grossly diminish parliamentary control over the Executive. That must be fought and fought again.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the statement by the noble Baroness that your Lordships have the right to insist on the amendment is one which I think needs to be qualified. True, we have the right to ask another place to think again. However, I should have thought that the constitutional position is that another place must have the last word in the matter. So long as we understand that, the noble Baroness's word "insist" might be accepted for the time being. Does she wish to intervene?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, only to say that I accept the correction from the noble Lord. I mean our right to return the amendment to the Commons for further consideration.
Lord Renton: My Lords, speaking for myself I hope that we do not ask another place to think again about this. We debated it fully when the Bill was before us on the first occasion. We have had the advantage of further opinions expressed for and against the amendment this afternoon. I should have thought that the right course for us now is to say that the Commons amendment should be accepted. I speak as one who wants the Bill. I do not wish for delay. Therefore I think that the crux of the matter is as expressed in the Commons reason that:
"it would unacceptably delay the implementation of the student loans scheme".
I do not wish to see the scheme delayed. That is the principal reason for agreeing with the Commons—accepting their disagreement on this amendment.

335
However, I have listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and others have said regarding what he called the weak convention of the constitution that your Lordships do not reject statutory instruments, with or without amendment—and it is rare that we have the opportunity to amend. I believe that is a convention which we should not lightly attempt to change. If it were to be changed, I think it should be changed in a more general context rather than for the purposes of this Bill.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as some people may believe, I differ from my noble friend who has just spoken in that I have never wished to see this Bill operational. I still prefer that it should be delayed in the hope that even at the last possible moment the Government will see the folly of their ways.
On the consitutional issue now before us I would make one specific point in adhering to my general view, which I think is the view of all noble Lords, that we should as rarely as possible challenge the legislative authority of another place.
This is a very special case because when our amendments, which were considerable and important, went back to another place a proper opportunity was not given to debate them. A guillotine —a timetable —was imposed. I know from Members of another place that there was considerable objection to the way in which the Government's objections to the Lords' amendments were railroaded through. It was just another example of what we have witnessed again and again in the passage of this Bill —an extraordinary determination to push things through as rapidly as possible, where necessary in defiance of accepted conventions. Therefore it seems to me that on this occasion and for that reason we are not bound by what I would normally regard as the binding convention to agree at the first opportunity with the Commons reason.
I have only one other point to make in respect of which I crave illumination. I am not clear that there is a real distinction between the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the amendment supported by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The amendment does not suggest that we would engage ourselves in the arduous business of amending regulations, which in their nature would be long, complicated and so on, but merely that the House would have an opportunity to suggest that the Secretary of State amend the regulations in the light of whatever considerations had been adduced either in this House or elsewhere and brought to his notice. I cannot see that it is very different to say that we should ask to have the statutory instrument amended, and that we should, as the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggests, simply reject it outright. I should be glad to be informed on that point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we have had a long and, constitutionally, very interesting discussion on this amendment. But one curious feature will have struck a number of noble Lords.
336
The very interesting question of our powers in respect of statutory instruments has been raised. However, it is notable, if one looks at the Marshalled List, that it was not apparently on any such ground that another place rejected our amendment. It is stated very plainly, "The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason: Because it would unacceptably delay the implementation of the student loans scheme". That is the reason stated by another place for rejecting the amendment which your Lordships put into the Bill. It is therefore surely on those grounds that one ought to consider the matter.
I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and his attitude to voting on statutory instruments. The present so-called constitutional position is quite unsatisfactory and will need to be reviewed. But, with respect, it does not arise today. We have before us a simple issue. Is what your Lordships considered an improvement to the Bill to be rejected because, if it remained in the Bill, it would unacceptably delay the progress of the Bill? With some Bills with which your Lordships deal the question of time is urgent. I refer to the Bills of an annual nature which have to be through if the constitutional machinery of the country is to work. That, with respect, does not apply to this measure.
I commented at an earlier stage on the apparent urgency from the Government's point of view of getting this measure through. I have frankly been puzzled. Your Lordships may recall that, so far from achieving any reduction in public expenditure, the Bill will, if it becomes law, for the first 10 years or so actually produce an increase in public expenditure. Therefore, from a public expenditure point of view, the urgency which the Government seem to attach to it seems a little difficult to follow. But the question for your Lordships is the question which the Commons posed to us. Does the urgency, real or supposed, of getting this measure into law so that it will operate this autumn counterbalance the very interesting argument as to what would be a good procedure to be followed in future?
The procedure set out in your Lordships' amendment applies beyond the time when any question of delaying the putting of the Bill into operation arises. Therefore, what the House is being asked to do, as I understand it, is, on the grounds of supposed urgency, abandon the proposals which, in the view certainly of some of us, would have made the Bill somewhat more acceptable not merely in its first phase but later on. It is therefore very much a matter for your Lordships. I shall be interested, as I am sure all noble Lords will be, to hear my noble friend the Leader of the House indicate what is the degree of urgency which makes the sacrifice of what must be assumed to be a better procedure worthwhile in the interests of saving time.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, at the Report stage of the Bill the Government accepted the principle of an amendment which had been previously moved by my noble friend Lady Young. It provided that when the regulations were first made to establish

337
the student loan scheme those regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It was a significant change to the Bill as we had received it from another place, and, understandably, it is fair for me to claim that the amendment for the affirmative resolution procedure was welcomed on all sides of the House. However, the first amendment on the Marshalled List today, on which the noble Earl, lord Russell, has moved a Motion to insist, would enable either House to vote to amend the regulations. The Secretary of State would then have to prepare new regulations and bring them back for approval again.
Under the affirmative procedure, if either House were to vote against regulations—that is as far as I am prepared to go this afternoon in respect of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—the Secretary of State would also have to take the regulations away, return with fresh regulations and seek approval once more. And so to that extent the first amendment does not add a very great deal to the Bill. But I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was absolutely correct to say that the amendment is a most unusual provision. It would add a serious complication. Under the amendment, what is to happen if one House proposes an amendment which conflicts with an amendment proposed by the other House? Whose views would take precedence?
In moving that the House should insist on the amendment the noble Earl referred to Erskine May. What the noble Earl did not say was that Erskine May makes it quite clear that some kind of machinery would have to be improvised to resolve such disagreement between the two Houses. There is a further problem. The amendment imposes a delay of 40 days during which the draft regulations can be amended. But, as my noble friend Lady Young quite rightly said, the procedure goes a good deal further. If an amendment were to be passed during the 40-day period, fresh regulations must be presented, another 40-day period would begin and more amendments could be made.
Therefore, I put it to your Lordships that Amendment No. 1 has constitutional implications because the process of amendment and representation could continue indefinitely. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, advised in his most interesting speech that if put to it the two Houses could sort out the matter. However, I am bound to say that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in moving the amendment has not offered any machinery for resolving the problem of conflicting amendments. My response to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is that it is hardly surprising that another place has given "unacceptable delay" as its reason for disagreement, although I should say that it could mean the prospect of almost indefinite delay.
My noble friend Lord Beloff complained that the Lords' amendments were, so to speak, railroaded through the other place. As I understand it, that was one of the grounds why he felt he would wish to vote for the amendment. I should point out to your Lordships that as six hours were given for consideration of the Lords' amendments in another place—and I am happy to say that 14 of them
338
were accepted —and this particular amendment was debated for close on an hour, I do not exactly agree with my noble friend.
The Government have tried to be as reasonable as possible in the matter. We have shown our willingness to agree to affirmative resolution and that is now on the face of the Bill. It was most warmly welcomed by your Lordships. But this amendment could carry it with the very unwelcome risk of conflict between the two Houses. That is something we should not be in the business of provoking during the final stages of the Bill.
I therefore hope that the noble Earl will not press his Motion (2A) to insist upon Amendment No. 1. However, in the event that he does so, I must ask your Lordships to oppose the Motion.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I think that it would be of interest to the House if he could say whether he believes that the delay which another place has described as "unacceptable" would in fact be in breach of the 1911 Act as amended by the 1948 Act?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that either I or another place has suggested any such thing. In answering my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter I merely put my own construction on the words "unacceptable delay", which have been used by another place.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and excellent debate, to which I have listened with great care. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, put his finger on the key issue: is this to be regarded as "unacceptable delay" and, if so, for what reason? I entirely accept what the Secretary of State said. Since the Bill has been through both Houses, the student loans scheme should come into operation at the earliest practical moment. However, in my view the adjective contained in that statement deserves weight as well as the noun. The question as to what is the earliest moment which is practical is one on which others as well as the Secretary of State may be entitled to an opinion.
The Department of Education and Science is a department which has shown some signs over the past two or three years of being inclined to be in a hurry. If we reflect on some of the other measures emanating from that department which have been before the Chamber, they have on occasion been measures where the department itself might have benefited from some delay. Delay is not always automatically bad if it can lead to an improvement in the measures presented so as to make them more capable of working. On reading the Secretary of State's remarks on this amendment made in another place, I was a little surprised that he alluded to "this i unnecessary and wasteful process of amendment". I shall not enlarge upon those words, but I shall say that, in deciding whether an amendment is either unnecessary or wasteful, the Secretary of State was setting himself up as judge and jury in his own court. Of course he thinks that his Bill is properly drafted; indeed, he would not have put it forward if he had

339
not thought so. But it is a question upon which the ultimate authority lies with the two Houses of Parliament.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House called me to task for not quoting the words of Erskine May: namely, that, where the Houses disagree, machinery must be evolved for reconciling the differences. I used those words when I originally moved the amendment. I refrained from so doing on this occasion simply out of a desire not to waste your Lordships' time by repeating myself I agree that there must be a machinery for reconciling the differences, but, as I understand it, the procedure is no different from that used on any occasion when this House or another place chooses to insist upon an amendment. Procedure exists for dealing with the situation. If one says that one cannot have two Houses expressing opinions because they might disagree, in the end that is either a nugatory argument or an argument for single chamber government, which I would regret.
I listened with a great deal of care and interest to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I entirely agree with what he said about a weak convention. I think that the time will come when the convention of not voting against statutory instruments will have to be broken, as indeed it has been 20 times since 1968. It is a convention which has already been very much honoured in the breach. Since 23rd November last I have wondered a great deal whether that was the correct route to use on this occasion. I have been in two minds about that for some time. What made me decide, tentatively I admit, to prefer this procedure which I am now defending, is the fact that very often this House makes some of its most valuable contributions by changing small points. The House has a very good eye for small points.
The procedure for voting against the whole body of regulations because you want to change small items in them is inevitably a cumbersome one. I thought—possibly wrongly; but the view is not an indefensible one—that the procedure suggested in the amendment had the advantage of being rather less cumbersome and of producing rather less reproach to regulations which after all might be 95 per cent. competently drafted and questionable in only 5 per cent. I should be sorry to see a situation where we could not improve the 5 per cent. because we did not want to cast too much doubt on the 95 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, said that this was a rare precedent. It is; it is a rare Bill. If one thing matters to me more than another in all this it is the hope that it will remain so.
As I said, I listened with a great deal of care to all the remarks which have been made. However, I have not heard anything which makes me think that I should change my mind. Therefore, I ask the House to insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
4.28 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is that the House do insist upon their
340
Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for reason numbered 2?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Adrian, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beloff, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mais, L.

Blease, L.

Meston, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monson, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cobbold, L.

Phillips, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Porritt, L.

David, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rochester, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Russell, E.

Ely, M.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Flowers, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Foot, L.

Stedman, B.

Galpem, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Hayter, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Hunt, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kearton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Aldington, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Allerton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Annaly, L.

Forbes, L.

Arran, E.

Eraser of Kilmorack, L.

Balfour, E.

Gainford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bellwin, L.

Geddes, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blatch, B.

Gridley, L.

Blyth, L.

Havers, L.

Boardman, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hesketh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hives, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hood, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hooper, B.

Carnock, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cockfield, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Joseph, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kimball, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cox, B.

Liverpool, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Long, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Daventry, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Elibank, L.

Manton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marsh, L.

341

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Merrivale, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Munster, E.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Nathan, L.

Nelson E.

Strathspey, L.

Norfolk, D.

Sudeley, L.

Norrie, L.

Swansea, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swinton, E.

Onslow, E.

Terrington, L.

Orkney, E.

Teviot, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pender. L.

Tranmire, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Trefgame, L.

Pym, L.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renwick, L.

Vinson, L.

Richardson, L.

Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Young, B.

Selkirk, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Schedule 2, page 3, line 40, at end insert:
"(1A) No student in receipt of a loan payable in accordance with regulations made under this paragraph shall be ineligible for Housing Benefit during his period as a student whether as a consequence of such regulations or of the provisions of or regulations made under this or any other enactment."
4 The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
Because it involves a charge on the public revenue and the Commons do not offer any further reasons, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4. With your Lordships' agreement, at the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 7 with reason numbered 8.
The amendments passed by your Lordships at Report stage of the Bill would prevent students in receipt of a loan or attending a post-graduate course being disentitled from housing benefit. The reason for the other place disagreeing to both the amendments—that is, Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 —is that of privilege. Because another place has asserted its financial privilege I believe it would be wrong for your Lordships' House to insist on these amendments.
I trust that your Lordships will acquit me of discourtesy if I advance no other reason in support of the Motion than that I am now making. In saying that I do not wish to prevent any noble Lord
342
discussing the subject of the amendments, but our decision at the end of the debate should be reached on one ground alone. That ground can best be set out by quoting the Companion to Standing Orders, which reads on page 122:
"If the Commons disagree to a Lords amendment which infringes their financial privileges, the disagreement is made on the ground of privilege alone …. In such cases the Lords do not insist on their amendment".
Your Lordships will recall that when these amendments were discussed on Report my noble friend Lord Caithness advanced arguments against them and the House rejected those arguments. I wish to emphasise that your Lordships' House was entirely within its rights to do so. Indeed the Companion to the Standing Orders also makes it quite clear that each House is the guardian of its own privileges. It alone may invoke those privileges, and until either House does so the other House is free to act as it thinks fit.
However, on this occasion another place has now invoked its financial privilege. Therefore, although I am advising your Lordships that these two amendments should now be decided on the single point of financial privilege asserted by another place, I firmly believe that, procedurally, your Lordships' House has exercised its powers hitherto absolutely correctly. Your Lordships have asked another place to think again about a provision in this Bill and another place has done so. Members in another place have confirmed their original decision and have concluded that this is an area of policy which, by long constitutional practice, belongs to them alone. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I do not propose to question the decision of Mr. Speaker on the two amendments concerning housing benefit. I fully understand that his decision was in accordance with precedent. However, I am relieved to discover that your Lordships' House did not act beyond its appropriate powers in attempting to prevent the removal of housing benefit for students. Nevertheless your Lordships' House was persuaded to exert its influence in order to retain the existing entitlement to housing benefit for students and for graduate students. One may wonder how wise it was to prevent another place from reconsidering the issues in the light of your Lordships' arguments and their decision. At the very least I believe it looked as if the Government were fearful that the arguments of your Lordships might have carried weight in another place as well as here. However, we shall never know whether that is the case because another place has not been allowed to reconsider the issue.
One should always hesitate before accusing Her Majesty's Government of high-handedness. However, I must confess to hesitating less and less in respect of the present Government. But what other accusation can one make of a government who deny another place the right to discuss and reject arguments that have been successfully made in this House?

343
The wider world will not take great interest in constitutional and technical niceties but it will look more directly at the consequences of this unhappy incident. Your Lordships' amendments on housing benefit gave the Government the opportunity to enlarge their loans scheme. At present it is one which in due course will relieve the Government and better-off parents of a large part of their obligation to help with student maintenance. If the Government had accepted your Lordships' amendments, the loans proposals would have continued to do that, but there would also have been continuing specific help for students who had to live in expensive accommodation. In respect of the last rejected amendment, there would also have been help for graduate students who are not eligible for the loans scheme.
The Government have now made it plain that their principal aim is to diminish the parental obligation for maintenance and to transfer a substantial part of the parental contribution as well as the Government's maintenance grant to graduates by imposing a charge on their future earnings. Indeed the Government see no reason to continue with the existing targeted housing benefit for graduate students, or indeed for any students whose accommodation is costly. It is to be discontinued in favour of the more meagre resources provided by the access funds. However, the doubling of the access funds will make a partial contribution to that problem.
Some 20 years ago this country was considered to be one which had an outstandingly well trained post doctoral research manpower. A substantial number of excellent industrial research facilities was set up in the UK. This is or was especially true in the pharmaceutical industry where major companies are frequently multinationals. Today I am afraid that the perception of that industry is one of increasing difficulty in recruiting research staff of adequate calibre. That is certainly in accordance with the experience of universities which have found that fewer able students now want to train for research careers. Other countries are now seen as better bets as regards providing new industrial laboratories.
Students themselves, and perhaps equally importantly industry, dependent as it is on well-trained and high calibre research staff, will not misunderstand the Government's thinking and the hidden and perhaps partly subconscious thoughts that have informed so much of their advocacy of this Bill. It will be seen that the Government's support of increased access—we have to realise that is only relatively recent —is only halfhearted. They will be the end but not the means. It appears that the Government are more concerned with and are doing more to help the finances of the children of social groups one, two and three. They appear to consider that graduate students, who will be tomorrow's research workers and tomorrow's university staff, can fend for themselves on the grounds that they had better get used now to the poor rewards that they will receive in the future.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is beyond dispute that where Members of another place claim privilege because an amendment carried by your Lordships' House imposes a charge, their word has to stand. However, I rise simply to ask my noble friend to give an explanation of the circumstances in which that process has occurred in this case. As I understand it, housing benefit is still payable to students and will remain so, at least until this Bill becomes law. If that is so, it does not seem to me self-evident that the action of your Lordships' House in taking out of the Bill something which takes away that right necessarily impinges upon the privilege of the House of Commons.
As I understand it, the effect of your Lordships' amendment is simply to retain the status quo and not to impose a charge where none exists at present. I have not had time to look up the precedents and it may well be the case that my noble friend can demonstrate that to take away something which otherwise was going to reduce a charge amounts to imposing a charge. However, I would say to my noble friend that that is not self-evident. As I understand it, all that your Lordships' amendment sought to do was to preserve the status quo and not to impose a new and additional charge. If that is correct, perhaps my noble friend can tell me whether there is any precedent for that situation being treated as the basis of a claim for House of Commons privilege.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly at this stage partly because of the fact that the propriety of proceedings in another place has been questioned. First, I should say that I entirely agree with the substance of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Adrian. I voted with the majority in the House in the clear conviction that the House had a right to vote as it did. However, I must unfortunately disagree with the first remarks of my noble friend Lord Adrian when he blamed the Government for disallowing discussion on this subject in the House of Commons. It had nothing to do with the Government. It was the Speaker's decision entirely and the Speaker's decisions cannot be questioned.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that in Commons Hansard of 4th April, at col. 1261, the Speaker reconsidered his decision and gave the reasons why he stood by his decision. I do not need to repeat the reasons. They are there for all to read. I do not wish to defend the Speaker in any way but his decision to invoke Standing Order No. 76 cannot be challenged in this House. In general it is not appropriate for either House to question the proceedings in the other place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he confirm my recollection that any question of privilege of the kind that we are discussing is a matter for the decision of the Speaker and he has the last word?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, yes. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said. He has reiterated what I have just said.

345
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to say a very brief word about the discussion on the previous amendment, in which I failed to intervene. However, I find it relevant now. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that it was a convention that in an exchange between these two Houses the House of Commons had the last word. I know of no such convention.
I also wish to say the same of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He indicated that it was normally the case and amounted to a convention that this House agreed with the House of Commons when There was an exchange between the two Houses. That is not correct. I may add that I have reservations about all of the speeches in the previous discussion except those of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I agreed with every word they said.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that he has just very kindly put me in excellent company since he had reservations about my speech and all the other speeches. I was aware of the point that he made and I apologise if I made any implications about the Speaker. I did not intend to do so.
Lond Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his original statement on these matters. In particular I thank him for reassuring the House that we followed the correct procedure at all times in dealing with the amendment. As the author of the amendment, I was always worried about whether the amendment was procedurally correct. I was amazed that at no point did it turn out to be procedurally incorrect and I was delighted that we accepted it.
I do not suggest that we should go against the Speaker's ruling. It would be entirely wrong for your Lordships to do so. However, I should like to make one or two other points which may be helpful. One is that the regulations dealing with the eligibility of students, and particularly postgraduate students, for housing benefit are not part of the Bill. They will be introduced as regulations in the ordinary way. Therefore there will be an opportunity to debate them. The suggestion that the other place has been prevented from debating these matters is incorrect. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who knows the rules, can confirm that.
My second point—and I say this not entirely to make mischief—is that the Government are not obliged even at this late stage to exclude students, and particularly postgraduate students, from eligibility for housing benefit. We have passed our amendment. The other place was not prevented from knowing what that amendment was and is perfectly well aware of our views, and of most enlightened opinion on the matter. It is still possible for the Government to decide not to go along this route. Perhaps the Government will listen to the cogent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, in particular with regard to postgraduate students, for whom the matter is of overwhelming significance. Even at this stage, and even if they continue to follow the line that they say they are following, it would be possible for the Government not to proceed with the
346
proposed ineligibility regulations, particularly regarding postgraduate students.
I do not at this point accept that all is lost. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, even on the question of the Bill itself the Government do not have to race ahead. Even if the Bill becomes law the Government could still reconsider. I therefore conclude by saying that this is an excellent example of your Lordships' House doing precisely the job which justifies its existence—namely, exercising its power to clarify an issue, to put the arguments clearly and to carry an amendment on the issue under consideration. Honourable Members and right honourable Members in the other place were given every opportunity to learn our views. They will still have the opportunity to debate them. In particular, the Government still have the opportunity to see sense on the matter and not to proceed further.
I have taken the opportunity to add a few words to the debate. I should like to end by saying that of course one must accept the Speaker's ruling and that is that.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should simply like to add my support for the last remark of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, regarding the importance of standing by the ruling of Mr. Speaker. Were your Lordships' House to question that ruling not only should we find ourselves constitutionally very incorrect but it would also make the workings of Parliament impossible were we to conduct ourselves in that way.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who made a rather beguiling speech setting out what he has always believed to be the substance of the matter. For my own part I believe that in view of the Speaker's ruling it would be quite improper to discuss the substance of the amendment. I do not intend to do so. I strongly suspect that my noble friend the Leader of the House will feel that he cannot do so either.
I was immensely flattered that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, felt that my earlier remarks were correct. However, I believe that there are certain constitutional issues which it is extremely important that we in this House should observe. Tempting as it is to stray outside those constitutional procedures it would be a mistake to do so. It would be seen not only to be wrong constitutionally but also to make relationships between your Lordships' House and another place impossible in the future. For that reason I recognise that we should not insist on the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hasten to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that I should not for one moment dream of questioning the Speaker's ruling, either on grounds of authority or on grounds of competence.
I am interested chiefly in understanding precisely what it is that Mr. Speaker has said in order not to fall foul of any such ruling in future. Like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I had believed that we were covered by the principle of Erskine May that

347
one does not require a new money resolution to continue an existing charge.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will give way. Perhaps I can discourage him from proceeding with what appears to be criticism of the Speaker of another place. I believe that it is highly unwise to do so. I should hate to move that anybody should be no longer heard in this House but I should have thought that it was not advisable to criticise the Speaker. I beg the noble Earl to desist from doing so.
Lord Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord most urgently that my next sentence was going to be in full agreement with Mr. Speaker, as was everything else that I intended to say. I was merely interested in what exactly it was that Mr. Speaker said. He said that Lords amendments were not covered by the money resolution in respect of the Bill. He also said that they would have been out of order if they had been moved in another place. That is rather more far-reaching than the simple matter of the ordinary Commons financial privilege, which is a door on which we may knock and another place may open if it chooses.
If I understand Mr. Speaker right —and I hope to be put right if I do not —he said that we were doing this on the wrong Bill. If that is so, I simply wish to say that I regret that it was so and to ask whether I am correct in understanding that what Mr. Speaker has said is not meant to discourage us from raising the matter in another place where it is covered by an appropriate money resolution.
Before leaving the subject, I should like to say that this matter will come before us again. I regret the policy that the Government are following. They have their sums wrong. They think that they are increasing the amount of money available for student support. In fact, they are reducing it.
5 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is there any way of preventing this from happening again in the future? The problem that we are now discussing and upon which my noble friend the Leader of the House based his speech in moving the amendment arose from the fact that the Bill started in this House and we had no way of knowing what the reaction of the Speaker and his advisers would be.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He said that he had his doubts as to whether we were within our rights when we discussed the matter and I must confess that I did too. Is there no way that my noble friend can ensure that on similar occasions in the future, when a Bill starts in this House and we do not have the benefit of Mr. Speaker's decision because he is not here, we avoid the risk of a possible clash between the two Houses?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I find myself in entire agreement on the substance of what your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Adrian, did at Report stage with regard to graduate students. However, it seems to me quite unarguable that the
348
decision of the Speaker on whether to apply a standing order of another place cannot possibly be questioned in your Lordships' House.
I merely add that there is a certain amount of euphemism in this matter. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal talked of asking the other place to think again as we often do. But it is no such thing. The decision is purely that of the Government. If they had wished to accept my noble friend's amendment, the Government could perfectly well have tabled a supplementary financial resolution.
In these circumstances it is pure euphemism to speak of the other place being asked to think again, particularly in this case when it was given no opportunity to express any view at all. It is the Government who make the decison and it would be very much better for constitutional reality if we recognised that.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before briefly replying to the debate, I should like to refer once again to the right of your Lordships' House to ask another place —if I may use the expression after the speech of the noble and learned Lord —to think again. Your Lordships do that on many Bills and, as I said on the first amendment, a good many amendments to the Bill have been accepted by the House of Commons. After the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, I felt slightly embarrassed. Perhaps I sounded a little pompous when I spoke at the beginning of the exchange talking about the procedural rectitude of this House, but I thought that I should put on record that my understanding and the advice that I received are that we have done everything right, even though life has not been made easy for the Government. It is our constitutional duty to revise and therefore to send amendments back to another place.
However, the Commons has now disagreed with Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 on the grounds of financial privilege. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked if I would explain the circumstances of the claim for financial privilege. I must not attempt to look behind the Speaker's ruling. I simple record that, at col 1261 of the Commons Hansard of 4th April, Mr. Speaker reiterated that the ground for disagreement was that both amendments are not covered by the money resolution in respect of the Bill. In the face of that claim of financial privilege, our Companion says that the Lords do not insist on their amendment. I therefore ask noble Lords not to insist on Amendment No. 3, which the Commons have disagreed to for the reason numbered 4.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Schedule 2, page 4, line 10, at end insert:
"(4) Regulations made under this paragraph shall allow special conditions to be set in respect of repayment of loans for disabled students or graduates."
6 The Commons disgreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
Page 3, line 40, at end insert —
"(B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall make such separate provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate with respect to the repayment of loans by borrowers who are disabled."
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 in lieu thereof.
The amendment which left this House was disagreed to in another place. However, those in another place have proposed a slightly different amendment which has much the same effect. This is a government amendment. The Government accept the principle of the amendment made at Third Reading in this House, and their alternative is essentially tidying up to ensure that the change to the Bill more effectively expresses noble Lords' intentions.
Both amendments are intended to give the force of primary legislation to the requirement that disabled people repaying loans should have their particular circumstances considered. My right honourable friend explained in another place that there are weaknesses in the drafting of the amendment inserted by this House. The government amendment rectifies those faults. The original amendment did not, for example, clearly impose a duty on the Secretary of State, although that was what noble Lords no doubt intended, and the government amendment does so. The government amendment also removes the reference to students who will not be repaying loans and substitutes the reference to borrowers. It makes clear that it is the regulations themselves which should contain that separate provision for the disabled.
The Government have already announced on 19th March that there will be special repayment arrangements for disabled borrowers. Those arrangements take the form of a disregard of disability-related benefits for the purpose of assessing a disabled graduate's income for deferment.
That provision will be implemented under the government amendment. It will be included in regulations subject initially to the affirmative resolution procedure. The amendment is therefore a safeguard ensuring the continued provision of special arrangements but not necessarily identical ones.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps I may express a word of gratitude to the noble Baroness for what she has said. I entirely agree that the form of words which the Government propose and which are now before the House are an improvement on the form of words which I moved in this House. I am grateful to the Government for acceding to the amendment and improving on its wording.
Perhaps I may ask one question. I regret that I have not given the noble Baroness notice, but the matter was raised in the House by, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Will the Government consider
350
making provision in the regulations for those who are subsequently disabled? When they are graduates and subsequently become disabled, it may be very hard for them to repay the loan. That provision should be considered by the Government and, if possible, incorporated in the amendment which covers the special conditions for disabled students regarding repayment of their loans.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may first say that my remarks are not intended to reflect on the other place, the Speaker or anyone else. I wish no discourtesy to the other place. But I also want my remarks on record. It seems that one cannot make even a simple speech now without being accused of discourtesy to the other place. I wish that those in the other place were as careful about what they say about this Chamber. I read Hansard and no doubt we could challenge them at some time, but that too would probably be out of order.
I merely want to ask the Minister to explain what is different about the amendment put forward by the Government which they have rewritten because it concerns money. Is there any reason why the other one could not have been rewritten and presented by the Government?
Lord Addington: My Lords, I am very glad that the Government have at least accepted the principle behind the amendment that was agreed by this House. I am also pleased that they have now decided to take into account the great variety of students and of repayment systems. I hope that any further and subsequent consideration of the Bill and its consequences will take into account that one does not necessarily have to be disabled to receive such special consideration. I hope this means that other aspects of the Bill will be considered in a wide and open manner.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for most of the comments that have been made in this short discussion. Perhaps I may first answer the query of the noble Baroness. I gave two reasons for the minor but important changes. First, a requirement is put very specifically on the Secretary of State each year to carry out the requirement to give special consideration. Secondly, the original amendment was rather restrictive in that it referred only to students. It is important to refer to borrowers who may be disabled. That simply widens the category of people. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, accepts that these are tidying up changes.
With regard to the noble Lord's specific question about graduates who become disabled, I am assured that they will receive special consideration. I believe that the spirit, and specific objectives, of the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, have been met by this amendment.
I should like to assure the House that the Government are committed to including in regulations special arrangements for repayment by disabled people. We accept the concern that specific reference should be made to that on the face of the Bill. Therefore we are willing to comply with the intention behind the amendment passed in this

351
Chamber, subject only to the minor changes that I have outlined.
I commend the Government's amendment to the House. In the light of those comments I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will also accept it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
7 Schedule 2, page 4, line 10, at end insert:
"(4) No student attending a course of supervision in connection with a postgraduate degree who is for any period of such study not in receipt of a loan payable in accordance with regulations made under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be ineligible for Housing Benefit during that period whether as a consequence of such regulations or of the provisions of or regulations made under this or other enactment."
8 The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason —
Because it involves a charge on the public revenue and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move formally that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8.—[Lord Belstead).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill
5.14 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. In so moving, I should like to explain why a government amendment that I had intended to table is not on the Marshalled List today. In my speech in which I moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 22nd March I stated that the Government intended to bring forward an amendment to provide that special arrangements for compensation should apply during the period of adjustment to a more open market.
I have to tell your Lordships that when my officials came to table that amendment on my behalf last week, they were advised by the House authorities that it was outside the rules of relevance with regard to the Bill and ought not to be tabled. I myself was abroad on official business at the time. Therefore, I returned to find that an amendment which I had undertaken to bring forward at the Committee stage of the Bill today in the event could not be moved.
I am now considering urgently what is the right way forward in these circumstances. I shall come back to the Chamber on this point at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will realise that he has put the Chamber in an extremely difficult position. On 22nd March at Second Reading there was a clear and unequivocal undertaking from the Minister that he would bring forward the amendment that he described. It is the normal procedure in this House that such amendments would be tabled for consideration at the Committee stage.
As he said, the Minister found himself unable to fulfil his undertaking. We must assume—and I do so—that he made that undertaking in good faith. We must also assume as a working hypothesis that the Minister is not a half-wit and that he had been properly advised on the undertaking that he gave. Neverthless, the Government have failed to bring forward the amendment that we were promised. That raises several important issues.
First, there is the importance of the matter for tenants of licensed properties which are dealt with under the Bill. They have been relying on the Government to bring forward an amendment. They have argued the case in another place, and indeed here, and I imagine that the Government accepted their arguments. So they are relying on the Government to bring forward a proper amendment.
At a time when the industry is being substantially reorganised, as I said during the Second Reading debate, it is correct and proper that the Government should give consideration to those tenants who may in some way be unfairly dislodged, at least during the interim period. Obviously we should like that consideration to be extended beyond the interim period. Nevertheless, the Government promised us an interim period.
The Long Title of the Bill is narrowly drawn. We took advice on whether or not the amendments that we proposed were in order. No doubt our advice was the same as that given to the Government; namely, that our amendments—apart from the one that I have put down on the Marshalled List today—were out of order.
The Government have one last chance. The Minister must fulfil his undertaking. If not, I must tell him that we believe that the Bill should be withdrawn and the Government should re-submit a Bill which will have a proper Long Title. That will allow the noble Lord to fulfil his undertaking and in addition enable us to discuss all the matters that were debated at Second Reading, given a wider scope for the Bill. If that undertaking is honoured on Report, as the Minister suggests, I shall argue that the matter is so important that Report procedures for the Minister's amendment—and we accept that he gives us the assurance in good faith that he will bring it forward on Report—are not possible. The matter is such that it cannot be considered on Report procedures and we shall wish to have a full Committee-style discussion on that amendment. Indeed, if the scope of the Bill is widened and our amendments, which I foreshadowed at Second Reading, become in order, we shall wish to have a recommitment of the Bill and we give no undertaking as to timetable.
However, if the Minister cannot meet his obligations at Report stage—I am sorry if this is a

353
matter of amusement to the noble Lord but it is a matter of great seriousness to this Chamber—and if the Bill is withdrawn and resubmitted in a different form, then from the Opposition I shall undertake to give all aid to the Government. We do not oppose the principle of the Bill, as I explained on Second Reading. We shall undertake to give all aid with the new Bill provided certain conditions are met on the timetable and we shall do our best to make sure that it goes through expeditiously.
Finally, it appears to be another case where DTI Ministers have made another foul up. I look very closely at the noble Lord. I refer to examples such as House of Fraser, the Iraqi supergun, Barlow Clowes, and Rover—the list is becoming endless. I very much hope that this time the noble Lord will get his act together and make sure that we are satisfied that the undertakings he made solemnly to this House at Second Reading are met.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we do not wish to follow with further chastisement to the noble Lord along the lines given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
We are extremely disappointed by the outcome of the Bill; and the limitations that have been put upon us and upon other noble Lords. We should like to have pursued an amendment that dealt with contracting out. Where contracting out is permitted, we believe that many of the measures that were seen to be recessary by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will not be able to be introduced.
That fact affects the whole point of the Bill. How the Government will get themselves out of this position is a matter of some curiosity to us. However, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it is vital that something be done. If the only way forward is to produce a No. 2 Bill, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, through the usual channels will get together with the Opposition parties in order to move quickly. In the meantime, we look forward to hearing what is to be done.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will realise that there are those of us on this side of the House who do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Bill is a mistake. The Bill is perfectly correctly drafted for what it was intended to provide.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this point. I stated at Second Reading that the Opposition welcomed the Bill. We had certain reservations about it, but we welcomed the principle of the Bill. We do not think that it is a mistake.
Our problem is that the Government, in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, undertook to introduce certain amendments. Those would normally have been introduced at Committee. That has not been done. That is our difficulty.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, does not seem to realise that there are many on this side of the House to which those amendments are not acceptable and who do not feel
354
that a compensation clause is necessary. That goes one further step down the road of destroying the proper, commercial relationship between the brewer and his tenant. I shall be extremely disappointed if we see that Bill amended. It is quite excellent. It is a one-purpose Bill in which compensation plays no part whatsoever. My noble friend cannot expect any co-operation from many on this side of the House if he brings back another Bill to introduce a matter that most of us feel is quite unnecessary and which we do not wish to be added to the Bill.
We are perfectly happy with the Bill as it now stands. We shall co-operate in any way. I cannot say the same if we advance down the road of an unnecessary compensation clause. As I understand it, it is not a question of withdrawing the Bill in this House. It will have to go to another place and go through all its stages there. There will not be time to complete it. The sensible thing is to realise that for once the Government have made an error in promising compensation. They cannot deliver it. We had better get on with the Bill and see whether a compensation clause is necessary at a later stage.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue that line. The Government have made a promise to the House and through apparent inadvertence I hope rather than conspiracy are unable to bring an amendment forward. I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that the Government should hide behind that inadvertence in order to fail to meet a promise to this House. The problem is not to do with the Bill but with propriety in your Lordships' House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is quite right. Given that the Government made their undertaking in good faith, will they now honour it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with the agreement of your Lordships, perhaps I may now bring the debate to a conclusion. I wish to make it quite clear that I had every intention of tabling an amendment, and instructed my officials so to do. When they arrived at the Public Bill Office, they were told that the amendment was not within the scope of the Bill and could not therefore be tabled in accordance with their advice. I very much regret that; but that is the fact of the matter. I undertake to consider very carefully what has been said during the debate and to do my best to resolve the matter between now and the next stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord give us an undertaking that on Report he will produce a solution to the dilemma?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly shall if I possibly can. If not, I shall have to be in touch with the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licensed premises: application of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("1992") and insert ("1990").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5 since they address the same point.
It was a matter that I raised on Second Reading. It relates to the interim period that the Bill as presently drafted prescribes for protection for tenants. In other words, if the Bill is passed without amendment, the tenants who are not protected up to 1992 remain unprotected. But if my amendment is accepted, the provisions of the Bill —in other words, the repeal of the section of the Landlord and Tenant Act with which we now know the Bill is concerned—will apply earlier than would otherwise be the case.
That has been a matter of contention both here and in another place. The problem is that the Government seem to assume that tenancies are on a three-year rolling period without notice. In most tenancies there is a notice period of 12 months. At any moment the landlord can give notice that the 12 month period will now apply and that therefore the tenancy after that notice will come to an end. Tenants may be on a three year rent cycle but not on a three year period of notice to quit; they may be on a 12 month period of notice to quit. The longer the period before the implementation of the Act (as it will be), the more tenants will lose their pubs.
I should not like Members of the Committee to feel that it is an unimportant matter. As I said at Second Reading, we are now in the process of a clear and substantial reorganisation of both the brewing industry (in the sense of brewing beer) and the retail industry (regarding selling beer). We have had, for instance, only recently the situation where the Scottish and Newcastle company have sold some 250 pubs in order to come below the 2,000 limit that the Government have set. The pubs have been bought by a variety of owners. Scottish and Newcastle was an excellent landlord, as I understand it. But it has sold its pubs to other landlords. While in some cases the various codes of practice involved have been accepted, and the provisions of the agreement have not been challenged, in other cases that is not so. Although Scottish and Newcastle originally said that the purchasers would have to comply with the Brewers Society code of practice, that has not been written into the sale agreement on these pubs. One new owner within two or three weeks offered the public house to a tenant at twice the original purchase price on the understanding that that was now the new value and that the tenant was no longer protected. If the Grand Met/Courage deal is agreed approximately 1,500 public houses will be sold. Again, there is no guarantee that there will be any protection for the tenants and their future is uncertain.
As Members of the Committee will be aware, in another place and on Second Reading we argued for the tenant's right to buy but that was not accepted by the Government. We are fearful that in the interim period tenants will remain unprotected in the case of a sale.
As always the Government have taken the line that they wish to be fair as between the landlord and the tenant. As always we have argued that there is not a level playing field; that the balance is in favour of the brewers and the subsequent owners of the pubs. Therefore, the tenants need more protection than is provided in the Bill as drafted.
The current situation is causing uncertainty in the trade. That is bad for tenants and customers alike. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: We have considerable sympathy with the reasons for the amendments as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. No doubt there is a danger of the scenario that he described and a number of tenants may be put under notice in the interim period. Nevertheless, the new tenants will immediately fall within the Act. We are faced with choosing the lesser of two evils; that of retrospective legislation and the threat of notice hanging over a number of tenants before the end of the three-year tenancy.
We believe that in a difficult situation the Government have struck the balance about right in setting the date at 1992. Although we recognise the unsatisfactory aspects that have been outlined we cannot support an amendment which introduces retrospective legislation because that is bad in principle.
Lord Trefgarne: The Government take the view that the amendments would involve too great a departure from the principle that we should not arbitrarily change the basis of existing agreements. In recent years the most common form of pub tenancy has been the three-year agreement. If the amendments were accepted all such tenancies entered into since July 1987 would be brought within the framework of the 1954 Act. In other words, some two-thirds of current agreements would be affected and put on a basis which neither landlord nor tenant could have anticipated at the outset. In general the Government do not believe that agreements entered into on a particular basis should have that basis changed unless there are very good reasons.
The approach that we have sought in the Bill is to leave the great bulk of existing agreements unaffected. Two categories of agreements will have their basis changed by the Bill. First, any agreements entered into since 10th July 1989 will have statutory protection from commencement. Following the Government's announcement on that date of their intention to legislate, it is clear that parties to such agreements will know that the 1954 Act might apply to their tenancies and will apply if the legislation is passed. Secondly, any old tenancies entered into before 10th July 1989 or of longer term which still exist on 11th July 1992 will by that date be brought within the 1954 Act. Such tenancies will be in the minority; perhaps only 10 per cent. of brewer-owned premises. In those circumstances the Government believe that it is right that tenants should be protected within a reasonable timescale. They will thus be able to exercise their new rights to buy products outside the tie without fear of repercussion on their security of tenure.

357
On the grounds of equity, however, the number of landlords faced with such changes in the basis for their agreements should be kept as small as possible. For those reasons I cannot commend the amendments to the Committee. I hope that the arguments will find favour with Members and that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for stating what was known to be the Government's view. I take issue with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I do not believe that I am proposing anything which could conceivably be interpreted as retrospective legislation.
The Minister said that the Government do not wish arbitrarily to change agreements. However, agreements are arbitrarily being changed. When Scottish and Newcastle sells its public houses to various entrepreneurs, or when in the future Grand Met sells many more public houses to all kinds of entrepreneurs, the agreements into which the tenants thought they were entering in good faith—that is, before the announcement of the provisions of the Bill and the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission whose conclusions were partly endorsed by the Government—will be changed. I am arguing that the Government and Parliament in its consideration of the Bill should ensure that the tenants have the protection that will apply to new tenancies after 1992.
I do not believe that the Minister has made out a proper case for the Government's view and I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L,

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Soper, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underbill, L.

Hirshfield. L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

358

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Aldington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Allerton, L.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Mackay of Clashfcrn, L.

Arran, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Aylestone, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Balfour, E.

Margadale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mersey, V.

Beloff, L.

Meston, L.

Belstead, L.

Mills. V.

Bethell L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Blatch,B.

Mottistone, L.

Blyth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Munster, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Nelson, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Nome, L.

Brocket, L.

Onslow, E.

Brookes, L.

Orkney, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Butterworth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Pender, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Porritt, L.

Carnock, L.

Pym. L.

Cobbold, L.

Reay, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Renton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Rochester, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Romney, E.

Cox, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Russell, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Daventry, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sharpies, B.

Derwent L.

Stedman, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Elibank, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ezra, L.

Falkland, V.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Ferrers E.

Eraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Grey, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gridley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tranmire, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Trefgame, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Vinson, L.

Hunt, L.

Westbury, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wise, L.

Killearn, L.

Young, B.

Kimball, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.45 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Trefgame Lord Trefgame moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert ("and section 24(3)(b) of the 1954 Act (which, in certain cases, preserves the effect of a notice to quit given in respect of a tenancy which becomes one to which Part II of the 1954 Act applies) shall not have effect in the case of a tenancy which becomes one to which that Part applies by virtue of this subsection.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to remove any doubt

359
there may be about how the Bill operates on tenancies which are brought within the 1954 Act when there is already a notice to quit outstanding.
Section 24(3)(b) of the 1954 Act deals with a situation in which a tenancy comes within the provisions of the Act for the first time but where a notice to quit has already been served by a landlord. Its intention was to cover circumstances such as those in which a premises changed use; for example, from residential to business use.
It has, however, been brought to our attention that this section of the 1954 Act could be construed also to cover a situation where a tenancy came within the provisions of the 1954 Act for the first time by virtue of the Bill. If so, some landlords could defeat the protection afforded by the 1954 Act by serving notices to quit.
The amendment would prevent this by making it explicit that Section 24(3)(b) of the 1954 Act would not apply where tenancies were brought within the 1952 Act by virtue of the Bill. Landlords can, however, commence the statutory procedure for ending the tenancy where it expires shortly after 11th July 1992. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We support this amendment. We think it rectifies a defect in the Bill. Perhaps it would have been courteous of the Minister to recognise the role of the lawyers of the National Licensed Victuallers Association in bringing the defect to the attention of the department. I am glad that the Government have accepted their point of view and have moved this amendment. We support it.
Lord Trefgarne: If I have omitted to offer praise where it is due, I hasten to rectify that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
5.49 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Transfer of Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("or schemes").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is perfectly straightforward and is designed to invite the Minister to say a little more than has hitherto been said in another place or by the Minister on Second Reading about the future plans of the Government.
The Committee should be reminded that although the Bill might appear to come within the Government's macro-scheme of privatisation, it could not possibly be seen as meriting stature with many other schemes. The Minister should know —he will be well advised —that there are tens of thousands of individuals who are very deeply concerned with regard to the Government's intentions. I invite the Government to comment on the tenor of the amendments that my colleague and I intend to move so that we can be better prepared for the next stage of the Bill. We are deeply worried by the refusal of the Government and the Minister to give satisfactory answers to perfectly straightforward questions.
The Minister is aware that the PSA has more than 20,000 employees and is responsible for work worth more than £3 billion. It is the largest design, building and maintenance organisation in the UK. Amendment No. 1 seeks to prevent the Government from breaking up the PSA in one way or another. I note from my papers that the former Permanent Secretary, Sir Gordon Manzie —whose name will be frequently mentioned tonight—told the PSA staff that the strong preference is to maintain the PSA as a single organisation and to sell it as a single organisation. The amendment seeks to come down on the side of Sir Gordon Manzie and invites the Government not to do otherwise.
The Government should be reminded that there are many ways in which the PSA, organised albeit in a different form in the future, still has a very important job to do for the nation. One can take the analogy of many large businesses, for instance the banks, the brewers and many other large organisations. They maintain in-house departments which are designed to carry out much of the work which the PSA is able to do and has demonstrated that it is able to do; it is a centralised in-house design and building organisation. We cannot see any sense in the Government not accepting the amendment.
I will mention one point, touched upon by many amendments. That is the unique calibre of the staff of the PSA. One of the prime reasons why people of such skill, experience and expertise stay with the PSA is because it provides the opportunity to work in a large vertically integrated organisation. The Government have acknowledged that the PSA's only real asset is the professional skill of its technical staff; without that, the organisation is nothing. We believe that the Government are treating very shabbily not merely those people with special skills, but uniformly all those who are currently civil servants. The sad fact is that many people are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They want to know precisely what the terms and conditions for

361
the protection of their future will be after the given date. I am told that over 600 key staff have already indicated their feelings regarding the Government's attitude by voting with their feet; they are leaving the organisation. That is a tragedy. There will be set up small partnerships and consultancies which will begin to nibble away at the manner in which the PSA has been organised—I am not against reorganisation —so as to provide the kind of services that it does.
The Minister has a good opportunity to reassure people outside the Committee by speaking to this amendment. It is not the kind of amendment I should necessarily press, but it is a good amendment to get these debates off to a sensible start. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I sense that Amendment No. 1 is a mischievous amendment—if it could be so described —designed to compel the Government to sell the PSA and TCS as a single entity. In practice it will delay the sale of the TCS. As the noble Lord is aware, that matter is already under way. The Committee is aware that the competition for the sale of the TCS in up to three parts has begun and is expected to be completed this year. It would be premature at this stage to settle the form in which the PSA should be sold, including whether it is to be sold as a single unit or in parts. That sale will not be before October 1992 at the earliest. But as with the TCS, decisions will take account of the return for the taxpayer, the future of the businesses, and, most importantly, the interests of the staff.
The amendment would place unnecessary and unacceptable restrictions on the timing and the method of the privatisations and would not benefit the taxpayer, the organisations or their staff It may be that some form of division will be to the benefit of the employees. I suggest that flexibility is the answer rather than the rigid structure proposed by the amendment. I urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Marvellous, my Lords! The Minister comes to the Committee and says that because matters have already proceeded in accordance with the Bill, the Committee is almost acting ultra vires in seeking to amend the Bill to exclude the actions which the Government have precipitously set in train. That is nonsense.
We know of the determination of the Government, the Minister and his colleagues to carry out their intentions regarding this small but very important element of the public sector. When the noble Lord says that he wants maximum flexibility and, using a phrase, I believe, which should stick in his craw, that he intends to do the best for the employees in this matter, all I can say on their behalf is that you could have fooled them. Much of what the Minister and his colleagues have said up to now has made them very fearful of what will happen.
The Minister must be aware that this is our only chance to act. The Bill is before the House at Committee stage for the first time. There will be a Report stage and Third Reading at which other amendments can be tabled. The Minister is quite right that there is a long timescale, but he and his
362
colleagues should understand that there are men, women, families and communities who are very concerned. There are some communities where the PSA and the Crown Suppliers provide, if not the major source of employment, then certainly a major source of employment, in that community or town.
The Minister says that the amendment is mischievous. In the sense that it is pointed and pertinent I suppose that it is. When he says that it is designed to keep those two organisations as one, he is absolutely right. The Government certainly did not say anything through the Minister's short response to indicate to those outside the Chamber, who are anxiously listening, and who will read with care what has been said, that there has been any progress in the Government's attitude towards not only the PSA, but the people who work with it. I know that those people will study very carefully what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("and liabilities") and insert ("liabilities and business").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 11, which are all related to the same theme. These amendments are some of the most important that we shall deal with tonight.
In our view, the Government are guilty of trying to foist a con trick not just on the people who work in the industry and in the department but on the public. There is a pretence that certain central government activities will be sold while retaining for all practical purposes those same activities in government, albeit diffused between departments.
The purpose of the amendments is simply to say that the PSA's business as such will not be sold but merely that the assets, rights and liabilities are to be disposed of We are already aware of the mix of private and public provision that exists, not just in this Government but throughout central and local government. I am told that over 70 per cent. of the PSA's design work is put out to the private sector. The PSA's role is that of a skilled intermediary between government departments and private design practice. The mini-PSAs which now operate in many departments undertake the same functions as were previously exercised on behalf of the department by the PSA itself. The phrase "to untie" various government departments—untie them from the central agency—has, of course, become fashionable.
At the mini-PSA currently being set up at the Ministry of Defence at Sutton Coldfield there are 250 design staff, many recruited from the PSA, who will be employed to oversee the commissioning of MoD design work and to manage projects. There is no point in the Government denying that that is a mini-PSA by calling the Sutton Coldfield set-up an intelligent customer facility. It is marvellous how the Government can dream up euphemisms to cover over the true position.
Numerous other examples exist. Until recently the PSA advised the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington on its maintenance needs. The PSA inspected the site, drew up maintenance schedules and specifications and placed contracts for private sector building contractors to execute the subsequent work. The NPL has recently employed its own technical staff in about the same numbers and grades as the PSA and they now do the same work direct. The PSA staff used to act as an intelligent customer facility for NPL but NPL now has its own technical staff and can act as an intelligent customer itself. When the PSA is sold off, this part of its business activity will not be sold but will remain with the Government. There are other illustrations of the way in which that is done.
We have to be exceedingly careful and clear as to what it is we are asking the Minister to do. We already have illustrations where non-PSA employees or a non-PSA nexus has been used in providing facilities. For example, at Rampton Hospital heavy electrical equipment was installed by private contractors without reference to the PSA. When it was switched on, it overloaded the system and major circuitry was blown. Rampton is a high security hospital. No one knows whether the electrical security system was disabled, because the incident was hushed up. That is a good example of the dangers inherent in allowing non-technical staff to take technical decisions.
A major redesign of Skills House in Sheffield was undertaken without reference to the PSA. At the annual inspection of the premises the PSA discovered that the refurbishments had dangerously overloaded the floors. The bar, leisure and restaurant facilities at the MSC headquarters at Moorfoot were modernised without reference to the PSA and a new suspended ceiling built which completely covered the ventilation ducts, with the obvious serious threat to health and safety.
The Minister may say that those are isolated cases but, if he does, I have a dozen other illustrations up my sleeve. In response to the pained look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, I do not intend to cite all those 12 or 15 examples. However, it is important for the Minister and his colleagues to answer the charges we are making. The actions and policies of the Government may well look good on paper, but we believe that one of the objectives is to reduce the number of people who claim to be civil servants. When the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are privatised the total number of civil servants will be reduced, thereby assisting the Government to maintain one of its original shibboleths.
In practice we are referring to a very real danger and to damage which can be done not just to working conditions but to the public. The illustrations I have given, and those that I could give, refer to the kind of properties on which the PSA has a fine record in regard to design, management and monitoring but which are being put at risk. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: We do not believe that the addition of the word "business" at various places in Clauses 1 and 2 would add anything of significance to the Bill
364
or that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have explicit power to certify the drawings, designs, etc., which will be the sole property of the PSA or TCS.
As the Committee will know, employees are given important safeguards in relation to the continuity of employment and the terms and conditions of employment by the regulations known as TUPE. TUPE, however, only applies to commercial undertakings, which for these purposes include the PSA and the Crown Suppliers. The question is not whether they are currently making a profit or loss or whether, with regard to the PSA, they have commercial accounting systems. What does matter is the nature of the organisations' activities. Both the PSA and TCS provide services in direct competition with companies in the private sector.
The Committee may be aware that the Solicitor General attended the Committee in another place to answer certain legal questions. One of these was whether TUPE would apply to the proposed sales. His answer was unequivocal. He said:
"I have no doubt whatsoever that they constitute undertakings that are in the nature of a commercial venture for the purposes of the regulations".
So far as Amendment No. 5 is concerned, the Bill already includes powers, in subsection 1(2) and in paragraph 1 of the schedule, for the Secretary of State to certify what has been vested by virtue of a scheme under subsection 1(1). He will, therefore, quite properly have discretion about which items of intellectual property, all of which is presently Crown copyright, should be transferred under the scheme. The Bill therefore covers the same ground as the amendment was seeking to cover.
I understand that the formulation used in the Bill—namely, "property, rights and liabilities"—is the normal way to describe the assets of an undertaking. No convincing reason, in our opinion, has been advanced for making a change. We suggest that it would be confusing, and therefore bad law, to use a different formulation. As I have indicated, we have in any case very firm legal advice that the staff of both PSA and TCS will have the benefit of the safeguards of TUPE.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to possible mini-PSAs. Clearly departments will be closely aware of the need to achieve value for money and to keep their procurement organisation to the bare minimum. Any idea that government departments were running their own mini-PSAs or TCSs and neglecting to get work done by an open and competitive process would soon run into trouble with the NAO and the Select Committee from another place, as well as from the Minister responsible for the department. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has taken to give me a full answer. However, in doing so he poses a number of questions. He tells me that the Government are on firm ground in respect of the cover or provisions of TUPE '81 in this matter. We shall be coming head-on to what I maintain and hope to prove: that

365
the ruling is in direct contradiction to the existing EC directive. The Government will be well advised to exercise the utmost caution in relying on TUPE '81. It is all very well doing so when it can be interpreted to suit the political imperatives of the Government. However, there is more to it than that.
The Minister also stated that the departments of state which have hitherto used the PSA would be well advised to look carefully at the extent to which they create their own mini-PSAs inside their departments. The Government ought to recognise, when the Minister used the phrase that staffing would need to be down to the bare minimum, that we are not talking about just any commercial undertaking; we are talking about the security of the realm. The work that the PSA has done, is doing and I hope will continue to do, is not merely commercial by any standard. As we move to the next amendment which relates to Northern Ireland, we find that there are aspects of the responsibilities of the PSA and conditions under which it works which cannot be made comparable to those anywhere else. I fear that in the Bill and in their response the Government are refusing to acknowledge the special—if not unique—nature of the PSA. More important, they are refusing to acknowledge the work of the PSA in looking after national assets.
Again the Minister has made a case which will be examined by those employed in the departments outside the House in order to see whether we wish to return with other amendments at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) Mo arrangement shall be converted into a contract under this section until the National Audit Office has certified that good value for money will thereby be obtained.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the point that the Minister made—good value for money. I should like him to tell the Committee a little more about the part that he envisages that the National Audit Office has played in these affairs. We are far from convinced that some of the deals that have been done by the Government are satisfactory. I live in Enfield and I remember the sale of the small arms factories very well. Regularly in the House and in the other place we hear illustrations of cases in which the Government divested themselves of hitherto public assets in a manner which is a scandal and a disgrace.
Will the Minister tell us what steps he will take to avoid the wrath of the National Audit Office? We do not wish to find that the horse bolted before the stable door was locked and organisations like British Aerospace laughed all the way to the bank. That firm bought the Royal Ordnance factories from the Government and it found that it had a goldmine. Hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of land had not been properly valued. I should like the Minister to tell us a little more about the steps that the Government have in mind.
I hope he will not say, "These are early days, it is a long time yet. We haven't got the flesh on the bones; we have a lot of consultation to do". Tonight is the opportunity for the Committee to put to the Minister our fears and worries. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: TCS and PSA have many assets but I can assure the Committee that hundreds of thousands of acres are not included.
I should explain briefly to Members of the Committee the purpose of subsection (3). Government departments in a legal sense are one and indivisible. They are all emanations of the Crown. The Crown clearly cannot contract with itself. Nevertheless, government departments frequently conduct business with one another in ways and on terms which in the private sector, or between governmental and non-governmental bodies, would amount to enforceable contracts.
When the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers become companies, many of the arrangements that exist between them and their customer departments will have to be converted into contracts. This can be done in two ways. Either contracts between the transferee companies and government departments can be signed after incorporation, or, where more convenient, the provisions of subsection (3) can be used. Not all the informal arrangements existing at present will be suitable for conversion into formal contracts and in those cases new contracts will have to be negotiated. Customer departments will of course be fully consulted about these matters, and about the rights and liabilities to be imposed under subsection (3).
It is possible to suggest that this subsection is a device to allow the Government to give the TCS and the PSA lucrative contracts in some underhand way to the detriment of the Government's objective to seek value for money in procurement. I can assure the Committee that that is not the intention of the Government. It is for departments to decide what agreements they should enter into with PSA or TCS. They will make that decision as customers looking to secure their best advantage. The Government would not wish them to do anything other than that. I can also say that the subsection will not be used in any way to avoid competition that would otherwise have been required by European Community law.
Members of the Committee will be aware that the National Audit Office has very wide powers to scrutinise the activities of government departments and, if it thinks necessary, to report on these to Parliament. I do not believe that this addition to their powers is necessary for them to discharge these obligations effectively in relation to government departments dealing with PSA and TCS. Responsibility for obtaining value for money from PSA and other suppliers already rests with the accounting officers of client departments, and they are answerable to Parliament for the way in which they discharge this responsibility.
It will be for the NAO to scrutinise the arrangements that are being or have been entered into by client departments. The appropriate Select Committee in another place may then want to examine their accounting officers in the usual way.

367
The effect of the amendment would be to make NAO responsible for making judgments for which individual departments should be responsible. Furthermore, to the extent that NAO are not equipped to undertake this function, the whole process of privatisation would be held up. I yield to none in my desire to secure value for money. But the way to do so is to put the responsibility firmly on client departments and to call them to account for the way in which they exercise it. That is the reason why I urge the Committee to resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I rise briefly on a couple of points which have been touched on. The Minister made great play of the National Audit Office being something of a watchdog. Of course it is; but it is only able to give views on events that have happened. My noble friend Lord Graham referred to British Aerospace and the sale of Rover. All those who listened to our exchanges at the time of the sale know that things went on which were not in accord with what one could call fair dealing and proper public accountability. I understand that the issue has still not been resolved.
The Minister will understand that some of us take with more than a grain of salt the view that he has expressed on behalf of the Government. No explanation has been given as to why the exercise should be taking place anyway. No one has published statistics or overwhelming evidence of where the PSA has let the nation down in the past. It has had its flaws in the same way as any other business organisation. A case was reported only this morning of a local authority that has sold off hospital services. There is evidence that the people who were deemed to be good enough to take charge of the operation are providing an inferior service. If that is the Government's intention, they should say so.
It is rather strange that Sir Gordon Manzie, who was originally sent to the PSA to sort it out in certain financial respects, now appears to be heading those who will take control of the out-of-house organisation. If that is not negotiating with oneself I do not know what is. I cannot find any other explanation. The head person of a publicly owned organisation should not be negotiating the terms for the disposal of its assets, however it is done, and should not be indicated as being in charge of its reception into the private sector. Is that an example of fair dealing? The Government should not expect us to fall for that one. Those are very dubious actions indeed.
The person who starts to organise the exercise would be rather stupid, knowing what was really the Government's intention when he was first sent there, not to organise it on behalf of those he will represent. He may be the chief benefactor himself in the business sense. I take with a grain of salt the claim that the National Audit Office will safeguard the interest of the taxpayer. By the time the matter reached the National Audit Office and the Select Committee of another place the problem would have occurred. The National Audit Office does not make decisions in advance. It is a watchdog. But in some
368
respects, because of the way the Government behave, it is a rather toothless watchdog. Nothing happens.
It is not the first time that mistakes have been made by the Government. I am looking forward to the first case of an overwhelmingly good deal being done on behalf of the taxpayer when parts of the public sector are privatised. More evidence is being produced of pubhc assets being sold off with the taxpayer receiving a bad deal.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My noble friend makes pertinent points to which it is clear the Minister is impervious. We shall return to Sir Gordon Manzie later on. The Minister's notes have been well prepared. We read the Guardian as well. It is a sad fact that the Government look at these matters in one way. They are punitive in the manner in which they look upon their responsibilities towards their employees. Once that responsibility has passed out of their control the terms under which it has been passed out of their control will become a matter of history.
These matters have a habit of reappearing. The Minister has tried to be helpful and he may very well have been helpful. My colleagues outside will read what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, Line 29, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 31. I have already made a passing reference to the significance of Northern Ireland in this context. I have the honour to speak on Northern Ireland affairs from my party's Front Bench. I have been to Northern Ireland and I try to brief myself on what is going on there. But I rely heavily on the Committee stage report of proceedings in another place.
On 11th January Mr. Eddie McGrady, the honourable Member for South Down, spoke to this amendment. He did not say anything which the Minister, who, I repeat, is always well briefed and wordly wise in these matters, does not already know. He referred to the terrible situation that exists in Northern Ireland. I met Eddie McGrady before he became a Member of another place. I respect him highly. He has long experience in politics, not least in the housing executive. What he says is chilling to someone like me who does not live in Northern Ireland, I understand and sympathise with people, including Ministers, who have to deal with these problems. I shall read a little of Mr. McGrady's speech. It gives a little of the flavour of the danger the Government may find themselves in. At col. 71 of the Committee stage report on 11th January he said:
"The larger part of Belfast is divided into three spheres of influence. One area is controlled by provisional IRA, a second area by the loyalist Ulster defence association and a third area by the official IRA which could roughly be described as the Republican Marxist element in the Republican movement. It is well known both to the Government and to the security forces that contracts and employment in those three areas are governed by those three bodies. They decide who is allowed to tender, to contract and to work".
That does not go on in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a special reason why Northern Ireland should be treated differently in this matter. It would be treated specially if it were excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. McGrady went on to say that,
"contractual prices in Northern Ireland are automatically loaded by"
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I interrupt the noble Lord merely to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is not the tradition of this Chamber to quote in a current Session from what has been said by a Member in another place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I acknowledge that fact. The words were so familiar to me that I thought I had heard them a long time ago. However, I am now reminded that they were spoken only this Session. I do not need the words other than as an aide memoire. Mr. McGrady told the Committee in another place that it is normally understood that building prices and contracts are overloaded by 20 per cent. Why are they normally 20 per cent. higher than anywhere else? It is because there is a need to pay "hush money", blackmail and contributions both by the company and by the individuals. He went on to say that it is not merely the company or the business which pays; the individual workers are also called upon to do so.
Mr. McGrady continued to give illustrations whereby companies that are fearful of either losing their business, their limbs or their lives go out of their way to ensure that statements appear in public print which they hope will indicate to the forces and the powers that be—we know that it is not the Government—that they have nothing whatever to do with government contracts. When we look at the situation of companies, we are also looking at security and safety. However, we shall discuss that aspect when we come to Amendment No. 9, which deals directly with security.
A very pertinent and poignant point was made by Mr. McGrady when he spoke in another place. He drew upon the fact that civil servants as such seem to escape as a class of people; they seem to escape the opprobrium of the men of violence from wherever they come. In other words, civil servants by the nature of their work, and possibly also because of the psyche of the Northern Ireland people, are treated differently. They are not seen as part and parcel of the battles.
My amendment seeks to give the Government an opportunity to exclude from the provisions of the Bill the references to "a Northern Ireland department". I believe that that is fair. I very much hope that the Government do not wish to carry this on their shoulders, along with all the other problems and burdens that they have in Northern Ireland —and I respect that situation —because there is no necessity for it.
In his first reply the Minister relied upon flexibility, timing and reconsideration. I think that this is an amendment which he could take away and
370
reconsider. He could return to the matter at a later stage to see whether it is possible to find a means of excluding Northern Ireland. The Province is an important part of the United Kingdom. However, I cannot see what magic plan or what major piece of legislation would be materially affected if the mention of Northern Ireland was removed from the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The Opposition have already argued in another place that the Act should not relate to work which the PSA undertakes in Northern Ireland. They have made much of security, as if the mere mention of the word settles the issue beyond further argument. But the question is much more complex than that. The Government have already made it clear that they will not do anything that is contrary to national security. If the PSA undertakes any activities in Northern Ireland that on the advice of the security authorities would be prejudiced or put at risk by privatisation, those activities will remain the Government's responsibility. Security in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, is the responsibility of the customer who commissions the work, not of the PSA. Further, the PSA undertakes work in Northern Ireland which is not related to the security services.
Amendment No. 31 would delete Clause 6(2), which extends the Bill to Northern Ireland and to work in Northern Ireland. Work in Northern Ireland represents a considerable proportion of the PSA's business, and Northern Ireland will offer important opportunities for the company to expand its markets. The PSA undertakes work in Northern Ireland for the Northern Ireland departments—environment, transport and agriculture—and maintains Hillsborough Castle. It could well in the new competitive world which it now faces offer a competitive service in other fields.
Given the assurances the Government have given about security, we do not believe that there are grounds for arbitrarily depriving an incorporated PSA of this part of its business. No decisions have yet been taken, or need yet to be taken, about how much of the PSA's current work ought to be retained in government. There is no reason why the Bill should exclude Northern Ireland from its coverage and possibly hinder the development of part of the PSA's and TCS's business. We believe that the amendment is one which will not assist and it is one which we resist.
I turn now to Amendment No. 7, which would prevent Clause 1(3) from being used to convert into contracts administrative arrangements between TCS, or the PSA, and Northern Ireland departments. Both TCS and the PSA are able to do work for Northern Ireland departments now, and we see no reason why they should be hindered from doing so in the future. Without the provisions of subsection (4), administrative arrangements with a Northern Ireland department could not be converted into contracts under subsection (3), though it would be possible for new contracts to be negotiated outside the terms of the clause.
The matter is currently under consideration by the Ministry of Defence, the PSA and Property Holdings

371
acting as the vendors. I should reiterate that the key fact about security is that it is the customer who is in charge. To give an example, it would thus be the responsibility of the MoD if it required work to be carried out by the PSA in Northern Ireland or anywhere else where there may be a risk of terrorism, be it in Germany or the United Kingdom, to decide such matters. It is up to the customer to define the requirements for security, not the PSA. That is where we believe the misunderstanding lies. That is why we resist the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the Minister sits down, I must say I am surprised, as perhaps are other noble Lords, that at this late stage of the Bill no real hard discussions have taken place with the MoD. I should have thought that the department is now in a position to say what it thinks is desirable and undesirable. It would be a most peculiar situation if talks were set to take place in the short time which is left; indeed, we are talking about a matter of weeks in which this Bill has completed its passage through both Chambers.
I should have thought that the views of the MoD would have been sought some time ago, bearing in mind that whatever the Government decide for the PSA in Northern Ireland—that is, how it is fragmented —it will still be the role of the defence forces to guard the population of Northern Ireland, even those who work for the new companies which the Government expect to emerge from this piece of legislation. Therefore, while the Minister may not wish to answer at this point, I should have thought that he could give some indication that the discussions with the MoD will be serious and meaningful and that they will not take place when it is too late to alter the Bill.
Lord Hesketh: I am more than happy to answer the point. The PSA is essentially a service organisation; it provides integrated services. Thus each contract and each job will require a new assessment. It will be an ongoing discussion where it provides services to any customer, whether it be the MoD which may present a higher risk in Northern Ireland than the Department of Agriculture. As each service contract is provided and each turnkey project is dealt with, at the start of the analysis of each project there will be an assessment made by the customer, together with the PSA if it is the service provider, and others. If you go down the tree you must look at the position of the contractors which the PSA may have selected to come in to carry out the contract and at what the position is as regards security in each case. At the end of the day the responsibility must rest at the top, with the customer, which, if it was the MoD in Northern Ireland, would be the MoD.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I think that the Minister is trying to make a bad case. If we consider the history of what this Government have done, they have in some respects totally rejected the advice of highly qualified professionals at the Ministry of Defence.
I can remember proceedings taking place in this Chamber when former defence chiefs of staff
372
strongly advised that the Government should not privatise the Royal Ordnance Factory and that we should keep under our control a large section of the government-owned logistic provisions and factories for the sake of national security. Unfortunately, the Government chose to reject that idea completely. Why should Members of the Committee from other parties who do not support the Government on this have any more reason now to think that the action proposed in the present Bill will be successful and in the interests of the people? It certainly has not been so in the past.
Lord Hesketh: At the risk of boring Members of the Committee, the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, put forward may be attractive on the surface. He gave the example of the ROF, but there is a further example: in a modem society communications are vitally important, and one could use the same argument about British Telecom and say that that also should remain within the state sector for the purposes of security.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am not against that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am sorry that the Minister cannot on behalf of the Government agree with a reasonable case—that is, that Northern Ireland is a special case. The Minister is saying that those elements of a special nature will be taken into account by the commissioning government department when it consults in detail with the PSA.
I believe that the Government are not fully aware of the nature of life in Northern Ireland. No master plan would be damaged if Northern Ireland were excluded from the Bill. The Minister talked in terms of the PSA. It is not just a question of the PSA but of the elements of the PSA which become privatised. In my view, no master plan would be materially damaged if Northern Ireland were excluded. But I do not think the Minister will say any more, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("No day shall be specified under this section before a 5 per cent. surplus on net assets is returned in six consecutive audited commercial accounts,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8. This goes to the heart of a great worry of the Government. They have said more than once that they are concerned about the timetable and about getting on with the job. However, the employees in the departments are concerned about the shape and state of what is to be sold on or flogged off by the Government in due course. The Government know that the ability to attract good employers who are willing to invest large sums of money in taking over the privatised sectors depends upon the health of the department at the time. Without going too closely into figures, because they change, the manner in which the Government have deliberately run down the department has caused a change in the viability of the PSA in recent years. This amendment simply says that there shall be no progress in these matters

373
until the people who are looking at the asset are satisfied that what they are buying is something with a proven., recent. successful track record.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments would prevent the incorporation of the PSA or TCS and their sale to purchasers until certain conditions relating to profitability, the availability of accounts and the valuation of shares have been met. Amendment No. 8 would delay the incorporation of the PSA until at least 1996, since it does not yet have audited accounts. The TCS did not meet the criterion, on a current cost basis, in the 12 months ending 31st December 1988, the last year for which results are available. So for the TCS, too, the delay would be considerable. To decide now to delay privatisation of either the PSA or the TCS to this extent would not be sensible.
In some ways noble Lords opposite seem to be trying to have it both ways, on the one hand protesting that they wish to protect the taxpayer by preventing the Government from selling off assets at less than their true value, while in the debate on this amendment they insist that if the PSA and TCS are not profitable they should not be sold and instead kept by the Government at the taxpayer's expense.
It is the Government's belief that both organisations will benefit from privatisation sooner rather th in later. Government departments are now untied from the use of the services of the PSA and TCS and will be seeking competition by obtaining competitive tenders from them and from private sector firms for future work.
If the PSA or TCS are to have full access to, and be able to compete effectively within, wider markets, they must have the full freedom of the private sector available to them at the earliest opportunity. We have been prepared to allow some limited freedom to the PSA and TCS to operate in private markets as a preliminary to their early privatisation. But these freedoms ought not to be extended too far in advance of incorporation because the Civil Service is not a suitable place for an organisation engaged in full-scale business activities. Early privatisation is therefore desirable if either organisation is to flourish. In addition, for the TCS the sale competition has been launched following a significant period of preparing the organisation for sale. Further delay would create uncertainties and jeopardise the future of the business. I suggest that this could be a loss both to the organisation and to the employees.
Amendment No. 29 would prevent the TCS trading fund from being wound up and its liabilities written off until is had operated at the proposed level of profit for three consecutive years. That is just as unacceptable as the previous amendment, for the same reasons. The main point is that we believe the TCS, like the PSA, will operate more effectively and profitably in the private sector. It is potential profitability, rather than actual profitability, which is important for the timing of the sales. Again, we resist the amendment.
The effect of amendment No. 26 is to prevent the sale of the PSA or TCS companies until the shares
374
have been valued, and until six years' accounts are available. The TCS already has full commercial accounts capable of meeting the requirements of the Companies Acts and Statements of Standard Accounting Practice issued by the main accountancy bodies. The PSA is in the process of introducing them. The accounting systems will be capable recording balance sheet values and charging depreciation to profit and loss accounts, and will be subject to proper commercial audit. They will be perfectly adequate for the Government as vendor, and for prospective purchasers, in valuing the business activities of those two organisations.
But the value of both organisations will be based on bidders' assessments of their future profitability when they are freed from public sector constraints. That is something on which bidders will have to make up their own minds. It would be foolish in the extreme for the Government to publish their own assessment of the value of the businesses as a going concern before the sale took place. That would effectively set a ceiling on the purchase price, which I am sure is not what this Committee would intend. Thus we resist these three amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: First, I apologise, as I should have made reference to the amendments additional to the one that I moved. The Minister was quite right to speak to the other two, and I am grateful.
I am intrigued, as I believe are many outside the Chamber, that hitherto it has almost been a cardinal point of principle that no element of the public sector shall be removed from that sector and sold unless it is possible to sell it to the best advantage. I should like the Minister to tell us what advice has been received, and what consultation has taken place and with whom, to satisfy him that the best possible price will be given by the market when these assets are put on the market. I am not as experienced as many others in this Chamber, but I should have thought that before someone buys something he should look not only at what it is doing now and might do in the future but at what it has done in the past.
If the Minister does not consider that the timescale that we have suggested is sensible or acceptable, he must surely agree that an element of our argument is acceptable. The evil day is merely put off until our measure is complied with. I make no bones about the fact that one of the motives we have in moving amendments of this kind is to provide time for the matter to be considered sensibly. We believe that the present situation will be seen as nonsense.
I hope the Minister can tell the Committee what advice he has received from those who are responsible for giving advice to the Government. I am referring to merchant bankers and people in the City who make a lucrative living from advising the Government on the means and the methods whereby dealings of this nature are carried out. The Minister may well tell the Committee that he is satisfied with things as they stand. I have no doubt that he is satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are beneficial. However, I hope that if that is the case, he will at least take the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and me into

375
his confidence and tell us why he believes the Government will obtain the best price for these organisations.
Lord Hesketh: The answer is fairly straightforward. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is well aware, most of the previous privatisations were not of service organisations. However, these two bodies are essentially service organisations. They will be judged on their perceived ability. I hope that anyone who is interested in TCS—and as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is aware, we are a considerable way from privatisation of the PSA and it will not occur before 1992—will take into account the glowing references that the noble Lord made earlier this afternoon.
Plenty of service organisations have been sold into the private sector. They were assessed on their potential. I said earlier that we did not wish to suggest a figure in this case which is then considered to be the limit. A figure is reached by considering the organisation itself, the people involved in it and the advice of those who have advised the Government on the matter. In the case of TCS the Government have received advice from Samuel Montagu. We have also received advice with regard to the PSA from Price Waterhouse. In the case of the PSA, we shall continue to take further advice. However, I must stress that we are selling service operations here. Prospective purchasers will assess them on the ability of the staff of those organisations.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. However, if a potential purchaser considers these organisations are worth buying, why on earth do the Government not consider that it would be a good thing to keep them within the public domain? The Government appear to be following their doctrinaire philosophy of selling into the private domain as many public sector bodies as possible. They wish to do that regardless of whether the public sector bodies are in the public domain because of the national interest or because of national security or other considerations.
The Minister has not assuaged some of my worries. However, he has gone some way to indicate that some advice has been taken and that the best terms will be obtained. That is one side of the matter, but the other side of the matter that we shall consider when we reach Clauses 2 and 3 is the impact upon the present employees of the PSA and TCS of being transferred into the private sector, if that option is open to them. However, I am grateful to the Minister and I shall read his remarks. I may return to the matter at a later stage; but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
("(8) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2) above, no part of the business of the Property Services Agency or the Crown Suppliers which is referrable to national security interests shall be included in any scheme under this section; and the Schedule to this Act shall apply.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the national interest and national security. I hope that the Minister will deal with one or two points that were not raised in the short debate on Northern Ireland. I hope that he will deal particularly with the interests of foreign governments regarding the privatisation of some of the services which they share and enjoy as a result of existing arrangements. The United States Government are opposed to having a privatised PSA manage the design and maintenance of their UK bases. Before the point is made that they will get rid of that worry by removing their bases, I should state that the US Government have hitherto been satisfied with the arrangements and the services that they have enjoyed under the PSA. The German Government are reported to be insisting that only civil servants should manage the design and maintenance of bases on German soil. In whatever ultimate shape the PSA emerges when the dust dies down, that matter will still be relevant.
We read in the press of the various ways in which companies are formed and employees are shuffled sideways and management seek to avoid all kinds of responsibilities. In this case there is the genuine point not just of serving our allies but also of protecting our own interests. When national security interests are involved, they should be paramount. The amendment states:
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2) above, no part of the business of the Property Services Agency or the Crown Suppliers which is referrable to national security interests shall be included in any scheme under this section".
The Minister may say that we are only seeking to retain parts of the two bodies concerned. That may be the case, but we are talking about parts of national security. The Government would show their flexibility and common sense if they responded helpfully to the points that I have made. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I have already assured the Committee that the Government will not privatise any activities which, on the advice of the security authorities, would thereby be prejudiced or put at risk. But this amendment would go far wider and exclude all work related to national security, whether or not there were any good security reasons for doing so. The amendment may reflect a misunderstanding about the nature of the PSA's security responsibilities and the respective roles of Government and their contractors. The amendment may also reflect a presumption that the public sector has a monopoly of trust in security matters.
Any client of the PSA or TCS has the responsibility for setting security standards. Although the PSA and TCS conduct sensitive business for the MoD and other government departments, that does not imply that they are responsible for determining the security requirements. It is, and will remain, the responsibility of client departments to assess the level and nature of the threat and to decide what type of protection is needed. That is true, for example, in relation to the weapon resistance of hardened aircraft shelters and the physical protection of Downing Street. The task of the PSA and TCS is to provide the buildings, facilities or equipment required by clients and to do so in accordance with

377
the requirements—such as for security—specified by them.
The client also has responsibility for security clearances of staff and contractors. To ensure that sensitive information does not get into the wrong hands, ihe PSA and TCS, like all government departments and many private sector contractors (for example, in defence procurement), have arrangements for staff to be security cleared. More rigorous clearances may be required for the most sensitive work.
There is a wide range of private sector consultants who ha\e for many years been carrying out many aspects of design on sensitive projects. Almost all the PSA's work of construction is done by private contractors. For example the main radioactive liquid treatment plant at Aldermaston and the floating jetty for Trident submarines at Coulport were designed and built by the private sector. All the staff involved were security cleared in the same way and no security distinction was made between design work done by private consultants and that done by civil servants.
Therefore, when PSA and TCS are privatised they will be in exactly the same position as the consultants with whom they will be competing for work. Their staff will be vetted in the same way as the staff of private consultants at present. It is the client, not the consultant or contractor, who settles the security regime which is to be followed in each individual contract. Their requirements will depend on the nature of the work.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, raised the position with regard to the United States. I am very surprised that Members on the Bench opposite should decide that the Government's policy regarding the privatisation of the PSA should be decided on the basis of what a foreign power believes is right and proper. I must remind the noble Lord that security is the responsibility of the client —whether it is the MoD, the United States Air Force or the Ministry of Agriculture. It is the client who decides the level of security which is appropriate, not the PSA or any other contractor in the same: position carrying out a similar job.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Can the Minister confirm that what I said was correct? Have the US Government and the German Government expressed reservations? The Minister made a fair point when he said that their reservations may be groundless. However, it would be helpful to the Committee to know—regardless of what the Minister has said and of the Government's interpretation of the situation—whether those governments have, as my papers tell me, expressed reservations about the change.
The Minister has said that the client, who in the case of American bases is the American Government, has been happy to work through the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency but may decide in future not to do so. He is saying that it is up to the American Government. Can the Minister help us?
Lord Hesketh: The first point to make absolutely clear is that the situation regarding responsibility for security which will pertain in the future is exactly the same as the situation which pertains today in terms of the decision-making process. Because of the changes which are implied, particularly in the case of the PSA—and I remind the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we are speaking of no sooner than 1992 —discussions are taking place now between the United States Air Force and the MoD. In the case of Germany there is a government-to-government agreement. Because there is to be a change in the future and the PSA will no longer be a government agency, discussions are also taking place with the German Government.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has neatly sidestepped my question as to whether reservations have been raised. The fact that discussions are taking place is one thing. However, the Minister has told us that security will be the subject of negotiations which are now taking place. The Minister knows that civil servants are bound by commitments, by the Official Secrets Act and in many other ways which could very well be sidestepped or watered down if the people in charge were not bound in that way. There will be thousands of civil servants, members of the various trade unions concerned, who hold in their heads, as well as in their files, priceless national secrets which they guard jealously and which are the property of the Government. Those individuals have access to, and are privy to, a great deal of information which is priceless in the context of security.
The American and German governments are entitled to be gravely concerned about the possibility that in future they would be dealing with people who were not bound by the same oaths and commitments as civil servants. However, the Minister has tried to be helpful. We shall look at what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
("(8) A scheme under this section shall contain a provision that there should be a period of not less than three months for consultation and agreement on employment terms and conditions at transfer between the transferee and the employee's trade unions. This period shall commence from the date of announcement of the agreed purchaser.").
The noble Lord said: It has become the practice recently in privatisations to allow a period for consultation of only one month from the date of announcing the name of the agreed purchaser to the transfer of staff. Given the complex issues of securing from the contractor agreements regarding the transfer details and discussing and issuing individual terms of employment to the staff, we believe the period of one month to be unreasonable and unrealistic. It is a departure from the timetable used in the transfer of management in the Royal Naval Dockyards and the sale of the Royal Ordnance Factories.
We argue, therefore, that a minimum of three months should be provided from the date of the

379
naming of the contractor and advising the recognised trade unions of that name. We can see no commercial detriment arising out of this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 10 seeks to incorporate into the Bill a requirement for consultation on employment terms and conditions. In our view adequate provisions are already included in TUPE which apply automatically to the transfers of PSA and TCS without the need for a specific provision in the Bill.
The Committee will be aware that Regulation 10 of TUPE imposes very detailed duties on employers to inform and consult trade union representatives about proposals involving the transfer of an undertaking. It is, of course, important that staffs trade union representatives should be given information about any measures that are proposed to be taken which affect them. TUPE requires that the unions should be properly consulted. Regulation 10(6) places a duty on employers to consider representations made by the unions, to reply to them and to give reasons if any representations are rejected. There is, therefore, no question of the unions being by-passed or ignored.
The unions have been told that the Government will aim to complete those consultations within 28 days of announcing who the purchaser will be. Whether that will be possible will depend on the nature and complexity of the issues which are the subject of the consultations. The Government have, however, already given an undertaking to the unions concerned that sufficient time will be allowed for proper consultations as required by TUPE. We accept that in the event that may take longer than 28 days, but in our view it would not be realistic to extend the period of consultation to a minimum of three months, nor to require the unions' agreement to the proposal as envisaged in the amendment. It would not in our view be in the interests of the businesses, the staff or the purchasers. Giving the unions a specific power to delay or veto the privatisations would serve only to help competitors and to damage the businesses and the staffs future in the private sector.
In summary, the Government do not regard it as helpful or necessary to incorporate into the Bill detailed consultation provisions which are more demanding and protracted than those already required under TUPE. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister relies very heavily on TUPE 1981. He would be wise not do so because we intend to challenge it on a number of points in later amendments.
It is very sad that the Government say, in response to a very reasonable request and in the light of modem industrial relations, that people who are to be transferred from good employment with good conditions and faced with being employed by somebody unknown should have only 28 days in order to form a judgment.
The Minister knows that most trade unions—and the trade unions involved here are no
380
exception—have smartened up their act very well in recent years in forming their intelligence on the nature of businesses. Their research is considerable. They will want time to form a judgment as to what they will advise their members to do.
Let me give the Minister an illustration of what is happening. I have here a letter from the London group committee of the Amalgamated Industrial Employees Side Association of the Whitley Committee relating to an event which is germane to our discussion tonight. It relates to redundancies in the Teddington district and states:
"You will be aware that the contract for the DTI National Physical Laboratory at Teddington has been awarded to Serco Gifford. As a result 44 DEL posts have been declared redundant. The terms of redundancy were negotiated and joint agreement was reached at a local Teddington District Whitley extraordinary meeting on 21st February 1990. Subsequently, on 5th March 1990, management sought to alter the agreement without negotiation. The London Industrial Whitley Group Committee discussed the Teddington District case at an extraordinary meeting held on 8th March and 12th March 1990. At the 12th March meeting the Director, London Region DOE/PSA, Mr. Giles Hopkinson, agreed that 43 of the 44 postholders would be treated under the Regulations for Industrial Employees' Chapter 14.40. The other post to be resolved locally. On the 16th March 1990, Teddington staff were informed locally that the 12th March 1990 agreement at Group level with the London Region Director was not going to be adhered to and that no compensation was to be paid to any of the 44 persons involved in the redundancy situation".
There is more to come. The Minister gets the flavour of why the employees are unhappy if they are to be increasingly faced with that kind of situation. All they are saying is, "Give us a little more time". The Minister says that if more than 28 days are required more time will be given, but the pressure is on. Why does the Minister not accede to the trade unions' request in that one little sphere? They are not arguing policy or principle; they are arguing about the ability to protect their members in such a situation as I have described to the Committee which could well become increasingly prevalent. Their claims are reasonable.
Lord Reay: I believe that I gave the arguments when I spoke earlier. The main point is that the Government will allow a reasonable length of time for the necessary consultations. We have given an assurance that we hope that that will be within a period of one month. If it is necessary to continue it beyond that, we shall be willing to do that, but we cannot agree to be tied down in advance to a particular timetable.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the Minister sits down, I must say that I am puzzled by one of his remarks. He said that, if the period were extended to three months, it may well put the purchaser at a commercial disadvantage compared with other people. I cannot recall whether the Minister used the word competitor, but I assume that that is what he meant. How could that happen when the terms regarding purchase and ownership have already been decided? I do not relate the two ideas, unless the Minister is saying that the new owner will lower working conditions for his staff so that he can compete with other people in the future. What did the Minister mean? I cannot relate the two ideas. They can have nothing to do with commercial

381
viability and competition when the purchaser has already been decided.
Lord Reay: There may well be circumstances in which it would be possible to complete all the agreemsnts within the 28-day period. In such a situation, it cannot be to the advantage of the company to delay privatisation any longer.
Lord Rochester: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dean, determines what he will do about the amendment, perhaps I may say a few words. As I understand it, the amendment seeks not only consultation but agreement on employment terms and conditions. Is the noble Lord saying that before a scheme can be introduced under this section there should not only be consultation but that the terms and conditions of employment should be agreed by the trade unions?
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Ministers appear to be nodding their heads, so I think the noble Lord has got it quite right. However, having heard the Minister's reply to both myself and the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, we should look at what he meant. It is mad to try to proceed on this basis. It does not augur well for future industrial relations for whoever becomes the owner. The whole matter may be in conflict with EC and ILO views. However, I do not propose to press the amendment tonight, although we shall certainly come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Transferred staff]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) this shall be regarded for the purposes of any scheme under the Superannuation Act 1972 as compulsory early retirement or compulsory early severance;").
The noble Lord said: We are moving on to what we consider to be a crucial clause and crucial issues. Ministers in another place—I exonerate the Ministers here—have made puzzling statements concerning the manner in which those who are affected by possible redundancy will fare under the arrangements.
The Minister, Mr. Patten, and his colleague, Mr. Chope, have sought to reassure union members and employees that they will not be detrimentally affected, but they have used differing words. They have used such words as "comparable" and "mirror" which have caused confusion. The aim of these amendments and others, particularly Amendment No. 14, is to encourage the Minister to tell us a little more. For instance, when the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, dealt with the Dockyard Services Bill, with which I dealt on this side, he said in respect of the principal civil service pension scheme and transfer regulations:
"It is, however, the Government's intention to set up pension schemes, one at each dockyard, which transferred staff will join
382
and which will, as far as possible, replicate the provisions of the PCSPS in terms of rules and benefits, including index linking".—[Official Report, 25/4/86; col. 1389].
We want the Minister to assuage employees' fears that they will not be detrimentally affected if they are transferred out of employment. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill states:
"Clause 2 provides that any member of staff of the Property Services Agency or The Crown Suppliers whose employment is automatically transferred to a new employer will not be entitled to redundancy compensation".
We heard the Minister plead in aid advice that he had received from the Law Officers in another place that in effect that was correct. We are however very uneasy.
In moving Amendment No. 12 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 13. I shall leave discussion of the major matters that I want to raise in regard to the EC directive until we reach Amendment No. 14. I shall be grateful if the Minister will deal with Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 separately.
The terms are fairly well known. The manner in which individuals are affected are very well understood. I should like to give the Committee an illustration of that effect. I have the permission of the individual concerned to quote his present arrangements and the likely situation that will occur. It concerns a Mr. Roger Stirland, chairman of the IPMS, PSA branch, TCS section. He says:
"I joined the service on 1st April 1974 … giving me 16 years service in total. I was bom on 24th December, 1950, therefore my age is now 39. I have been a diabetic on insulin for 35 years and was subject to a Civil Service medical before being offered an established post as a PTO IV F&E in Nottingham.
For the past seven years I have been receiving treatment for retinopathy on both my eyes. This condition is as a result of having diabetes for a long period; the treatment is an attempt to prevent total blindness which without treatment would have occurred about four years ago. The treatment itself causes the weakening of the sight and there is the strong possibility that my sight will in the future become so impaired as to prevent me carrying on with my work; also a total loss of sight in one or both eyes could take place at any time.
So what would I get from the PCSPS if this happened tomorrow? My service of 16 years would be enhanced by 6·66 years giving a total of 22·66 years. My last year's earnings should come to £15,500. That, divided by one-eightieth, would give a figure of £193·75. The immediate annual pension would then be £193·75 multiplied by 22·66 which would equal £4,390·38. This would attract full index linking to the cost of living index. The lump sum paid immediately would be £4,390·38 multiplied by 3 less the widow's pension contribution on the added years which would be £1,548·45, leaving a lump sum payable of £11,622.
To calculate the total benefits payable and their worth to me over the next 20 years I have allowed an average annual cost of living pension increase of only 5 per cent. On the lump sum I have allowed for an average annual investment income of again only 5 per cent. This gives the following results. Annual pension payment increased by cost of living paid over 20 years gives a total of £145,172. Lump sum payment invested over the 20 years would, with compound interest, rise to £171,076. This shows that the minimum level of benefit I would expect from the PSCPS over the next 20 years until my normal civil service retirement age would be £316,248.
By forcing myself out of the Civil Service against my will I will lose my entitlement to the ill health retirement benefits under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. How will the Government guarantee that I will not be disadvantaged as a result of this privatisation?"
I shall be grateful if the Minister can satisfy Mr. Stirland as well as this Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I am not sure that I shall be able to provide an instantaneous response to the particular circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord. I know that in his generous way he will want a very full response by Report stage, which would be entirely reasonable.
The effect of both the amendments would be to delete the existing paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and to substitute a provision whereby staff would effectively be regarded as having been compulsorily retired and entitled to the benefits under the PCSPS that flow from that.
As I have already explained in relation to earlier amendments, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to the privatisation of the PSA and the TCS and will safeguard the staffs terms and conditions of employment. The transfer of these organisations out of the Civil Service will mean that the staff can no longer be members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The termination of their membership would trigger automatically the staffs right to redundancy compensation, even though they will retain their jobs on the same conditions of service.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that the payment of redundancy compensation in these circumstances would be rather strange. It is precisely that anomaly which subsection (2) seeks to rectify. That is why paragraph (a) contains standard provisions which have appeared in all recent legislation concerned with the privatisation of organisations whose employees are members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, if adopted, would simply introduce into the legislation the strange situation which I have described.
Amendment No. 13 would result in redundancy compensation for staff transferring with their jobs. It also proposes that any questions of contractual rights and obligations arising under Section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 should be referred to the ombudsman for pensions. Schedule 3 to the Social Security Bill 1990, which is currently before this Chamber, provides for the establishment of this post. As I understand it, on his appointment the ombudsman will have extensive powers to deal with matters of maladministration and to deal with matters of fact and law. If that Bill is enacted, and the ombudsman for pensions is appointed, it will be open to any individual to seek to have questions on contractual rights and obligations considered by him. That will be provided for automatically in the social security legislation and we believe that to reiterate it here in this Bill would be superfluous.
On the basis of those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We shall need to read what the Minister said. Time and again it comes back to the fact that the Government have failed to satisfy us, or to satisfy the trade unions who represent many thousands of members, with the explanations given. I have quoted one individual's situation. I shall be mentioning one other case before the debate ends this evening. There are dozens of anxious
384
people who can see that in practice they will be damaged. If they were to be transferred from one government department to another, that in itself would be traumatic but at least they would be kept within the family, as it were. The Government propose to transfer them out of the family.
I do not for one moment subscribe to the view that there has in any way been ultra-protection. I have read out figures. Those are the kinds of circumstances that prevail in many cases.
However, when someone such as Sir Gordon Manzie is able to have his release from employment facilitated and the terms under which he left the Government's employment enhanced and when his prospects, to which he has been privy and of which he has been aware for many months, have been the subject of the personal intervention of the Prime Minister—or so I understand from the press—then I believe that the Minister can understand very well why the ordinary individual whose salary might be £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 should feel just a little aggrieved. Some individuals are able to look after themselves very well; in the case of others it is left to the power and the advocacy of their trade unions to try to get marginally better terms than the Government have introduced. I believe that the Minister's answers will be considered with great care by those outside the Chamber. I may return to the issue at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert:
("(b) Article 3(2) of the Business Transfer Directive (No. 77/187) shall have effect in relation to the agreed redundancy procedures applicable to a person employed in that service").
The noble Lord said: The Business Transfer Directive (No. 77/187) states at Article 3(2):
"Following the transfer within the meaning of Article 1(1), the transferee shall continue to observe the terms and conditions agreed in any collective agreement on the same terms applicable to the transferor under that agreement, until the date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement or the entry into force or application of another collective agreement".
The trade unions in PSA and TCS have collective agreements relating to redundancies and to the procedures which shall apply in relation to redundancies.
Although I am not in difficulty, I believe that the Government are. Clause 2(2)(b) is objectionable, first because it violates EC Council Directive 77/187, thereby placing the UK in breach of its obligations under the Treaty of Rome; and, secondly, because it flouts two principles of responsible industrial practice which the directive seeks to enforce. The first is that the transfer of an undertaking shall not be used as an excuse for depriving employees of that undertaking of the rights and benefits they enjoyed before the transfer; and, secondly, that any necessary change following the transfer of an undertaking shall be negotiated —and I repeat the word "negotiated"—and not imposed unilaterally.
The stated purpose of the directive is to bring about,
"the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfer of undertakings or businesses or parts of businesses".
I refer the Committee to the preamble to the directive. Article 1(2) states that, "a transfer" includes any legal transfer or merger.
Two of the cardinal provisions of the directive are that on the transfer of an undertaking an employee employed in that undertaking is automatically assigned on his existing terms and conditions into the employment of the transferee. That is Article 3(1). Secondly, following the transfer, the transferee employer must continue to observe the terms and conditions contained in any collective agreement applicable to the transferor until the collective agreement expires or is renegotiated. That is Article 3(2).
Member states can limit the period following the transfer within which collective agreements must be observed, but the period must be not less than one year following the transfer. That is Article 3(2). They cannot limit the period for which a transferred employee will continue to enjoy the terms and conditions of the contract of employment which has been automatically assigned upon the transfer. If the transferee wants to change the terms of an individual contract of employment, he must negotiate—I repeat, "negotiate" —the changes with the employee. The directive does not empower member states to create exceptions to these rules for particular transfers or kinds of transfer. If there is a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the directive, that is the end of the matter. Articles 3(1) and 3(2) must be observed.
Member states were obliged to bring into effect the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to comply with this directive within two years of its notification (see Article 8). In order to secure compliance on the part of the UK, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 S.I. 1794 were introduced. Because the directive stipulated that the principle must apply to every legal transfer, the regulations apply,
"Whether the transfer is effected by sale or by some other disposition or by operation of law".
That is Regulation 3(2).
Clause 2(2) of the Bill plainly assumes that a transfer scheme under Section 1(1) will or may constitute a transfer of an undertaking. It goes on to provide in Clause 2(2)(b) that,
"none of the agreed redundancy procedures applicable",
to an (employee prior to the transfer shall apply after the transfer. It therefore derogates from the regulations and more importantly, from the directive. That is because it means that where an agreed redundancy procedure has become part of an individual's contract of employment (expressly or by implication) he will cease to enjoy that benefit upon being transferred. That is a plain violation of Article 3(1). Secondly, even if the agreed redundancy procedures are not incorporated into individual contracts of employment and exist only as collective
386
agreements, they cease to apply immediately after the transfer. They do not continue to be effective for the minimum period of one year prescribed by Article 3(2) of the directive.
One legal consequence would be that the UK would be in breach of its obligations under the Treaty of Rome and could be brought before the European Court of Justice by the EC Commission on account of treaty violation.
A second legal consequence would be to open a Pandora's Box of uncertainty. That is because an individual suing or being sued by the transferee employer in the British courts could seek to argue that the directive has "direct effect" under Community law, and that the British courts should therefore ignore Section 2(2)(b) as being in conflict with the individual's rights under European law. The circumstances in which a directive ay be relied upon in this way before national courts is a vexed question of Community law. But is s clear that the argument is in principle open where the individual is seeking to enforce the directive against the state.
Whether an undertaking transferred by the Property Services Agency or Crown Suppliers is "the state" for this purpose is itself uncertain. However, in the Foster v. British Gas case currently before the European Court of Justice, the European Commission has submitted that "privatised" bodies can or do constitute part of "the state". Suffice to say, that if Clause 2(2)(b) remains, it can only create uncertainty as to the legal position of individuals affected.
The violation of the directive represented by Clause 2(2)(b) would not be merely technical in character. It offends the central purpose of the directive, which is to ensure that the transfer of the undertaking should not be treated as good reason for detracting from the rights and benefits of employees who have served the undertaking; and, secondly, that a transferee employer who finds the terms he has inherited to be inconvenient should look to negotiation with the staff and not impose new terms unilaterally.
The justification for Clause 2(2)(b) is hard to seek. Clearly the view cannot have been taken that a scheme transfer would necessarily be outside the definition of a "transfer of an undertaking". Clause 2(2) clearly assumes the contrary. Similarly Clause 2(2)(b) cannot be intended simply to ensure than an employee will not enjoy redundancy procedures at the point of transfer to the privatised body. The effect of the regulations is that he does not become redundant at the transfer, so that the redundancy procedure would not be triggered at this point in any event.
The only explanation which remains is that the existing redundancy procedures were thought to be inconvenient for prospective transferees. But to give effect to any such concerns is to fly in the face of the whole objective of the directive. The new employers should negotiate change. They should not be in a position to impose it.
I apologise to the Committee for taking the care that I believe this Chamber will recognise that I have taken in order to be well prepared to deal with a

387
central point of concern to the employees who are affected.
I make the point to the Minister in all seriousness. Although earlier the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said that the Government had taken advice, I should be happy if in the light of the legal opinion that I have given to the Committee the Minister will look at the matter again. I shall not press the amendment to a Division but it would be helpful to those outside the Committee if the Minister could indicate that he has seized the gravamen of my argument and will look at the matter again. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: It may be helpful if I begin by explaining the background to Clause 2(2). It was designed to ensure that the transfer of the PSA and the TCS to the private sector did not result in the staff being regarded as redundant.
The Committee will know that TUPE ensures that the staff enjoy continuity of employment. But because of the way in which the Civil Service pension scheme is drafted, when civil servants' membership of the scheme is terminated by their transfer to the new companies the pension scheme would treat them as having retired on grounds of redundancy. That would be patently absurd and would give civil servants an unfair advantage over other employees. It would result in them retaining their employment with the transferee on their existing terms and conditions, as a result of TUPE, while being compensated by the transferor as though they had been made redundant.
Clause 2(2), therefore, seeks to deal with this anomaly. Paragraph (a) prevents the payment of redundancy compensation to staff who transfer to the purchasers' employment by providing that they are not to be treated as having retired on redundancy. Paragraph (b) relates to the agreements that departments have with trade unions representing civil servants about the way in which any redundancies among the staff should be dealt with. As I have explained, since the proposed transfers of the staff are not redundancies, it is important to avoid any confusion about whether the departmental redundancy agreements should be activated.
These agreements have two main purposes. First, when a department finds that it has surplus staff the agreements set out a range of measures designed to avoid the necessity of making any staff redundant. These include measures that the department with the surplus can take, such as the discharge of casual staff and calling for volunteers for early retirement. But they also include measures affecting other government departments such as limiting or suspending recruitment throughout the Civil Service and transferring surplus staff to other departments with vacancies. The second purpose is to set out arrangements for the selection of individuals for discharge in the event that a department declares posts to be redundant. However, as I have said, the staff of the TCS and PSA are not in any event being made redundant, so these procedures should not apply to them.
Therefore it would not be acceptable to the Government for Clause 2(2)(b) to be deleted. If the
388
Committee passes this amendment some confusion could be caused. It might be thought that the redundancy selection procedures could apply to deciding which staff transferred. As I have explained, they should not do so because the staff are not being made redundant. Clearly uncertainty about the transfer would not be in the interests of the staff or of the organisations themselves.
Finally, Clause 2(2) is well precedented. It has appeared in virtually the same form in all recent legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised the issue of the effect that Clause 2(2)(b) might have in reletion to the procedures that would be applied if there was a need to make staff redundant following their transfer to the new employment. There are substantial parts of the Civil Service agreements which could not survive a transfer to the private sector. I am thinking here of the parts of the agreements which have service-wide implications. Clearly a private sector organisation could no longer have links with the Civil Service in dealing with any surplus staff. But I accept that there are parts of these agreements which would be capable of transfer. For the reasons I have explained, the amendment would not be acceptable to the Government. But I have taken note of the noble Lord's point and I undertake to consider it before the Bill completes its passage through this Chamber.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for his concluding remarks. We are puzzled by the fact that those remarks and the Bill's provisions cease to have effect in respect of the new employer on day 2. On day 1 the employment is transferred, no redundancy is paid and the employees are in the hands of employers, who may not be good. The Minister will not be surprised to be told that not only are there bad employers but there are those who have fallen on hard times.
At present men and women employed in the public sector enjoy good terms and conditions negotiated for them by their trade unions. These conditions were given to them sometimes grudgingly, by governments of the day. If Clause 2(2)(b) remains unaltered the conditions of employment will be to their detriment. I have taken care to obtain a legal opinion which has some force, as those outside the House will understand. Whether it prevails is another matter. If it does not prevail the consequences could be serious for the Government and the individuals concerned.
1 referred to the dockyards Bill. During our debates on the way in which TUPE '81 affected the dockyards the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said:
"The Government have amended the provision substantially, but I still think that it is very difficult to follow. That is why I suggest that the provision should be left out and instead there should be inserted the subsection which I suggested originally at the Committee stage. It reads:
'The provision of European Community Law contained in Council Directive 77/187 shall apply to the transfer of the dockyard undertaking to another company; and shall take precedence over any regulation or enactment which fails to implement the Directive correctly'".—[Official Report, 27/6/86; col. 545.]

389
The amendment was lost and the Government's view prevailed. Hence, we are now in the present situation. I believe that they are using a false analogy based upon a weak premise. Although the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 are good they do not of themselves give any authority by which the Secretary of State can transfer the qualified service employees without their consent from the service of the Crown to the service of any other employer. That proposition was contained in the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in 1986, and it has force in respect of the present debate.
My purpose has been served. I have made my case and the Minister has given the Committee a fair answer. He said that before the Bill reaches its concluding stages he will advise me what, if anything, he is able to do or say which will allow me to take appropriate action in the concluding stages. I am grateful to him and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) No person shall be transferred by this section other than by mutual consent.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is simple to understand and it is important. It is clear that there will be redundancies from within the Civil Service. There will also be terms and conditions of transfer, but some employees will not wish to move. In such circumstances one may talk about voluntary and compulsory redundancy.
We are saying that no person should be transferred other than by mutual consent. That means that terms will be reached under which the transfer shall take place. That is the raison d'être of industrial relations. Therefore, this is not a threat, a promise or a question of being mulish or digging in one's toes. If the Government are serious about their industrial relations nexus, then they should be prepared to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I do not deny that the staff of PSA and TCS face a period of considerable change. But it has been made very clear both to this Chamber and another place that so far as concerns their terms and conditions of service, the staff will not be disadvantaged by the privatisations.
Even so, I accept that some staff may not wish to move into the private sector and would rather stay within the Civil Service. The Government have already taken some measures, in relation to TCS, to ensure that the staff have as much choice as possible, consistent with the objective of a successful privatisation. But I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that if the privatisation is to succeed, TCS must be staffed properly. In particular, it cannot be deprived of all its expert staff.
During 1989, administrative and ancillary employees in TCS were asked whether they wished to volunteer for secondment with the new owner. The staff in those grades are generalists and represent
390
about half of the 1,100 then employed by TCS. Almost 70 per cent. of those eligible volunteered for secondment, and will remain civil servants during their secondment period. They will also be free to accept permanent offers of employment by the new owner. Those not offered permanent posts, and those who do not wish to accept them, will be offered alternative civil service posts. Of those staff offered secondment, those who opted not to be seconded are being moved to other civil service posts before the sale takes place.
TCS has decided to make a significant reduction in the number of its furnishing professional staff As a result, nearly 100 staff are being given the opportunity to retire early on favourable terms.
It was not possible to offer secondment to the professional and industrial staff in TCS because there was no certainty of finding alternative Civil Service posts for all those who might have wanted I them. Instead, these staff have been given an undertaking that they will be given an opportunity to state their preferences about whether they wish to remain in the Civil Service or to move into the private sector. This is likely to be when the terms on offer from the purchaser are known. Management have already given a commitment to use their best endeavours to meet such staff preferences, bearing in mind the needs of the TCS business and the availability of other posts.
So far I have confined myself to TCS, where the sale is more advanced. It is impossible to be as specific about PSA staff at this stage, not simply because the sale is still some way off, but also because there are far greater numbers involved: there are 22,000 PSA employees in the UK. However, I can assure the Committee that the Government are conscious of the need to take account of the wishes of PSA staff, so far as it is possible without jeopardising the viability of the organisation in the private sector.
The Government intend to establish the preferences of PSA's staff and to fill posts there with staff who wish to stay with it as it moves into the private sector. A booklet has recently been issued to all PSA's non-industrial staff asking them to record their preferences. It is clear that changing workloads within PSA as a consequence of untying, and the drive for greater efficiency will mean that alternative postings will need to be sought for significant numbers of PSA staff in any event. As the opportunity arises, we intend to post out as many as possible of those who wish to move to alternative Civil Service posts.
However, it would be wrong to leave the Committee with the impression that there can be any guarantee that the preferences of all such staff can be met either within the PSA or elsewhere within the Civil Service, or that natural wastage will be sufficient to cope with any surplus.
The amendment involves the concept of mutual consent. I take that to mean the consent of the new owners of the PSA and the TCS as well as the individual members of staff It may be that Members of the Committee opposite consider that there is less likelihood of members of staff being made redundant

391
after the sales if the new owners have reached the decision in each case as to whether or not they wish to employ them. I cannot accept those arguments on the principle nor, even more importantly, as a practicality. The issue of principle is that staff have the benefit and safeguards provided by TUPE. It seems to me wholly wrong that the purchasers of the PSA and the TCS should be able to override the provisions of TUPE by being allowed to pick and choose who should transfer.
Members of the Committee will know that the Government made a small amendment to the Bill on Report in another place to remove any doubt that there may have been that the new owners could pick and choose their staff. That change was pressed on the Government by the Opposition, but this amendment is wholly inconsistent with that. As a matter of practicality, I do not see how an employer can be expected to reach decisions about 22,000 individual members of staff within the PSA. For those reasons, we resist the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The new employer would not have to deal with 22,000. The Minister has already gone through a range of ways in which the numbers likely to feel aggrieved or disadvantaged could be substantially reduced. The trade union negotiators are realistic men and women. They will not unnecessarily stand out for a benefit or an advantage for a handful of their members who it is felt are acting unreasonably. However, the Minister should not equate someone who does not wish to be transferred or made redundant with being unreasonable. We are not talking about the Minister's livelihood or mine or that of any other Member of the Committee. We are talking about people with responsibilities who have mortgage payments to meet.
I should like to share the confidence of the Minister that a new employer will be as reasonable and sensible as he indicates to the Committee. I fear that the new employer, whether or not he has a good bargain, will be proved to be less willing to take into account the range of matters which are currently part of the conditions under which civil servants work. However, I do not believe that we shall make any progress this evening. I shall read what the Minister has said and I shall take advice upon it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) The benefits for early retirement of redundancy, inefficiency and limited efficiency grounds shall be underwitten by Treasury funds.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 21, 23, and 30. This group of amendments invites the Government to be generous and helpful. Sadly, there will be people who cannot be taken on and who will be passed over for whom retirement will need to be sought. As an act of good faith we are inviting the Government to say that the public purse, which
392
has hitherto been well served by those people will underwrite any payments.
I am under no illusion—as I am sure is the case with the Minister—that we are talking about potentially large sums of money. However, in practice those figures will not be too great. The other amendments in this group relate to the same kind of nexus. For the avoidance of doubt, these amendments deal with this and any subsequent transfer because the Minister will be aware that once the employee has left the protection of public employment, then all sorts of things can happen to him.
This is the time when people like myself, who seek to represent the views of those who sought my assistance, face the Government with the realities of the situation. It is also the time when those outside the Committee expect to receive confirmation that their case has been made. I do not put too fine an edge on it. We saw what happened in previous situations. The Royal small arms factory was given all kinds of assurances by the Member of Parliament and others. There were assurances by many people. Unfortunately, once the ordnance factories were sold to British Aerospace there was a change in the plans. Redundancies and closures took place; it was a very unhappy situation. I say that having been the local Member of Parliament at the time.
It is no good wringing our hands after the event. The Minister must reassure people who at the moment are fearful. The Minister has said more than once tonight that he hopes to reach agreement with the trade unions. He used a phrase at which I smiled. It led the Committee to believe that negotiations with the trade unions were without blemish. I can say to the Minister that the trade union negotiators are a very unhappy group of people at the present time. He may give them some reassurance when he responds to the amendment. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: These six amendments all relate to the redundancy terms for the staff transferred to the new PSA and TCS companies. They seek to do two things: first, to provide the transferred staff with the same benefits they have at present; and secondly, to provide for the protection of those benefits by means of a Treasury guarantee, a special fund to pay benefits or by dedicating assets to underwrite the payments.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 21 appear to duplicate one another, as to a certain extent do Amendments Nos. 16 and 21. The latter amendment refers to pensions as well as redundancy. There is a separate group of amendments on pensions and, with the Committee's leave, I will deal with that part of Amendment No. 23 when we consider the relevant amendments.
I should like to deal first with redundancy terms. The Government have already said categorically, and I am happy to repeat the assurance to the Committee, that arrangements will be made to ensure that, after privatisation, redundancy terms will be identical, as far as possible, to those the staff have at present. There is only one respect in which the redundancy terms may not be identical to Civil

393
Service terms. Some staff, on being made redundant by the Civil Service, would be entitled to the immediate payment of their pension lump sum. Whether staff made redundant after privatisation receive any immediate pension lump sum will depend on a complex of circumstances. The arrangements we are proposing, however, will ensure that the staff will, if necessary, receive a payment which compensates them for deferment of the lump sum that they would have received had they remained civil servants.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 21 use the words "comparable" and "equivalent" respectively in relation to redundancy terms. As I have indicated, we shall be arranging for the staff to be given redundancy provisions which are virtually identical to those they have at present. That seems more beneficial than what is being proposed in these amendments. I do not believe, however, that it is necessary or indeed desirable to include provisions in the Bill to this effect. There are two reasons for this. First, the approach that the Government are adopting on redundancy provisions is in compliance with their obligations to the European Community, and it is not necessary to repeat those obligations in the Bill. Secondly, the redundancy terms are complex, and providing fully for them in the Bill would considerably and unnecessarily lengthen and complicate the Bill. No such measures have been included in previous privatisations, all of which have been carried through with proper protection of staff interests. I am quite satisfied that the staffs redundancy rights will be fully protected in these privatisations also by the measures the Government are proposing.
I should like to turn now to the question of the security of any redundancy payments made after the privatisations. Members of the Committee proposing Amendments Nos. 16 and 23 argued that there should be some form of guarantee that, if the new owner defaults on his obligations, the payments will be made from public funds. The trade unions representing the staff of PSA and TCS have already made representations to the Government about that.
Those representations are being considered, but I should perhaps say to the Committee that I am doubtful about the case for guarantees. There has, in effect, only been one occasion when such a guarantee has been given. That was the Devonport dockyard; it was considered right to give a guarantee in that case because of government decisions to reduce the workload there which would lead directly to redundancies. Guarantees were not given in the case of the other dockyards, or for any other privatisation. Generally, privatisation policy entails a clean break between the privatised entity and the Government so as to ensure that the new company competes on equal terms in the private sector.
In running the sale competition for TCS —and this will also apply when we come to sell PSA —we have had regard to the importance of selling to a purchaser who demonstrates a commitment and ability to consolidate and develop the business. We shall also seek to ensure that the purchaser has the necessary; resources to run the business successfully. This will mean that if, at some future date, it should prove
394
necessary for some of the staff to be made redundant, the company should be able to do so on the basis of the terms I have explained without threatening the viability of the business.
I quite accept that a purchaser may wish to propose changes to the redundancy terms, or indeed to other terms and conditions of employment. That will be a matter for negotiation between the employer and the staff, or their trade union representatives. I can reassure the Committee that an employer cannot force his staff to accept inferior terms and conditions of employment.
In summary I ask the House to reject all six of these amendments. As I have set out to explain, the Government will ensure that the staff have redundancy terms which are identical, as far as possible, to those they have at present. The question of guarantees of those terms is under consideration, but such a guarantee is unprecedented in a privatisation of this kind and it is unlikely that the Government will accede to the unions' requests. We believe that the interests of the staff, in relation to redundancy, will be properly safeguarded by the measures I have described.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will consider my remarks and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken in preparing himself but having listened very carefully to what he said, it is very confusing. The words that I used to describe what the trade unions want: not "broadly comparable", but "comparable"; not identical "as far as possible", but "identical".
I understand that the Minister is saying that there may be some difficulty in carrying out the amendments; the difficulty is finding the money. However, the Minister should understand that Mr. Brown, who is employed in a responsible post and is paid a fair wage—shall we say £13,000 or £14,000—is very concerned when this hoo-hah is going on with regard to the change. He recognises that there will be a different climate because he will not be in the public sector but in the private sector. He is asking whether he can be assured that the benefits for which he has been paying will be transferred with him. As the Minister knows, any wage structure which an employee enjoys is cushioned and conditioned by the fact that other things such as redundancy, enhanced redundancy schemes, sick pay or early retirement are all part of the wages and conditions of the employee. He wants them carried forward.
I accept that negotiations are going on. Earlier in the debate I referred to Sir Gordon Manzie, the former chief executive of the Property Services Agency. He has not had any problems concerning what would happen to him when he reached the end of his employment. His employment was facilitated into early retirement with very generous terms. That is the man to whom the employees of the PSA looked for the past number of years to protect their interests. He did not need any advice on how to protect his own interest. He received a £66,000 per year salary—not £10,000 or £12,000—and he retired

395
with a £33,000 per year index-linked pension and a £100,000 lump sum. Good luck to him! Those were no doubt part of his conditions of pay. The employees who may be forced willy-nilly to go elsewhere do not want a job which might pay £250,000 per year for a two-day week, which is what the newspaper tells me Sir Gordon will receive. They only want that which they already enjoy.
I am careful with my words. I do not want to denigrate the conditions that the Government have seen fit to provide for their employees until now: they are neither generous nor parsimonious; they are fair, they are negotiated. In the same way as Sir Gordon Manzie has looked after his own interests, we are asking that someone should look after the interests of employees who served under him.
This is one of those situations where the Minister has said as much as he can. I am not privy to any detail of the discussions. I say that absolutely honestly. I shall be guided by the employees' representatives outside this Chamber. However, I have to tell the Minister that there is no point in using such phrases as "unique", "one-off, "innovation" or "creating new conditions". It is as a result of trade unionists' experience with previous privatisations that they take their current attitudes. They have already been over similar ground. It is because they are unhappy with the way other privatisations have been handled that they want to introduce these ameliorations. However, I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) No person shall be transferred under subsection (2) above unless his interests in respect of rights conferring immediate or prospective entitlement to invalidity benefits and old age benefits, including survivors benefits are protected. This protection shall include —

(a) the provision of benefits comparable to the benefits provided by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme; and

(b) the index linking of benefits identical to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme; and

(c) either contribution rates identical to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme or full compensation in lieu thereof").

The noble Lord said: I am sure that the Minister has a brief headed "resist". I should be grateful if he could tell us what it says in response to this amendment. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I never like to think that the Government give the longest reply at the Dispatch Box but I have done a considerable amount of research into this subject which I feel may be of assistance and I hope not too boring for the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I thank the Minister.
Lord Hesketh: I should like to begin by explaining the Government's proposals for pensions in relation to these two privatisations. Both the PSA and the TCS are commercial undertakings to which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply. These are known as TUPE. TUPE will ensure that when the undertakings are sold, the staff's contracts of employment are not terminated by the transfer of the undertakings. The regulations will further ensure that the staffs terms and conditions of employment remain unchanged. The single exception is that occupational pension schemes are excluded from the transfer. In this respect TUPE is fully consistent with the European Community's Acquired Rights Directive. Nevertheless, employees are protected by United Kingdom employment law and might be able to claim that they have been unfairly dismissed if after the transfer the pension provisions offered by the new owner are not broadly comparable with their existing pension provisions.
In the sale of the TCS we have said to prospective purchasers that we shall expect them to offer pension terms broadly comparable to the PCSPS. There may of course be a different mix of benefits; for example, a higher pension and a lower lump sum. The proposals submitted are being analysed by the Government Actuary to determine whether they are broadly comparable with the PCSPS. Pension proposals will be an important factor in the Government's assessment of the bids for the business. In the case of the TCS we cannot compel prospective purchasers to offer a particular scheme. They are likely to want the TCS employees to join the existing company scheme.
If the purchaser's scheme is assessed as not being broadly comparable, ways will be found to make up any disadvantage. The Government would seek in negotiations with the purchaser to improve the pension terms or to improve other terms and conditions of employment. As a last resort, if these routes proved impossible we would compensate the staff for any pensions disadvantage. In that way we would ensure both that the staff were fully protected and that the Government complied with their obligations.
The sale of the PSA may proceed in the same way as for the TCS, in which case the arrangements for dealing with pensions will also be similar. It is probable, however, that the PSA will be incorporated and would then trade as a wholly-owned government company. If so, the staff of the PSA will cease to be members of the PCSPS on the date they are transferred to the government-owned company. A new pension scheme would need to be available for the staff to join from that point and it would be the responsibility of the Government to set it up. In doing so the Government would consult appropriate advisers, including the Government Actuary. The scheme may not be identical to the PCSPS—for example, it would probably be a contributory scheme—but the aim would be to create a scheme with a package of benefits broadly comparable with those of the PCSPS. When the company is later sold, the purchaser would acquire the shares of the company. He would simply inherit the then existing pension arrangements and would be bound by them.

397
I now turn to the four amendments relating to pensions. Amendments Nos. 22 and 19 both refer to the provision of comparable pensions. Amendment No. 24 refers to equivalent pensions. I have already explained the legal background to the Committee and also set out the Government's proposals. In both privatisations we shall be seeking to achieve broad comparability. Assurances have been given in another place, and I am happy to repeat them to the Committee, that the Government will ensure in relation to their overall terms and conditions of service that the staff do not suffer any disadvantage as a result of the sales.
These amendments also deal with one or two other matters and I now refer to them. Amendment No. 22 refers to the initial transfer and to any subsequent transfer. The protection which United Kingdom employment law provides will apply in any case and I see no need for a special provision of the kind proposed in the amendment.
Amendment No. 24 would make it necessary for changes to a pension scheme to be subject to negotiation and agreement with the trade unions. The Government will be consulting the trade unions about the proposed pension arrangements. Once the new pension arrangements are put in place it will be for individual members of staff to decide whether they wish to join that scheme and also whether they wish to transfer any benefits they have accrued in the PCSPS to it. Once that scheme is running the employer may only make changes to it with the agreement of the members. Again, therefore, this is not a matter which requires specific legislative provisions.
Amendment No. 19 refers to index-linking and to contribution rates. I have already explained the Government's approach to comparability, but it would simply not be practical to approach the task in the way envisaged by this amendment. The amendment would require index linking and contribution rates to be identical to those already in the PCSPS. These are important matters but in the Government's view they need to be assessed as part of the overall pension scheme.
Amendment No. 25 would introduce a new clause which would allow staff who have contracted to buy added years from the PCSPS to continue to do so. As the Committee will be aware, the staff of the PSA and the TCS will cease to be members of the PCSPS when they are transferred to the new companies. It would not in the Government's view be reasonable, or indeed possible, to make an exception in relation to the purchase of added years. In common with their ordinary benefits, staff will have the choice either of freezing any added years or transferring their benefits to the purchaser's pension scheme. Therefore, the value of any added years purchased up to the date of the sale will not be lost. It is also expected that the purchaser's scheme will have its own arrangements for enhancement which members can take advantage of if they wish.
Finally, I refer to Amendment No. 23 which is principally about guaranteeing redundancy compensation, but I believe we have already debated this point.
398
On the basis of those remarks, and I apologise if they were too lengthy for the Committee, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I should like to make one or two observations on what the Minister has said. I think he agrees that his comments were somewhat long and involved and they need to be looked at in detail by noble Lords and by the people affected before reaching any conclusions on the actual meaning.
However, a thread running through the Minister's comments appears to cross the Government's avowed intention. A major feature of the Government's platform, and one has to say that they have had much success with it, is the so-called giving the unions back to the members and setting the unions free. From what the Minister said, while many of the points he made may well be acceptable and be thought to be reasonable, it comes across clearly to me as a former active shop floor trade unionist that there are very few negotiations at present taking place with the trade unionists and their leaders who are involved in this dispute. I think that it is almost the Government saying what the negotiations will be.
This is a strong argument. I have an idea of the course my noble friend will take with these amendments. Probably he will do the same as he has done with previous amendments earlier in the evening. If these negotiations are to be accepted by the members of trade unions, to have any real chance of success and to get the show properly on the road it should in my opinion be the trade union representatives, not the Government who should undertake this. There is far too much involvement of the Government in this matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Without wishing to give any offence, I fear that the Minister has been advised that because consultations have taken place or meetings have been arranged, ipso facto, agreement has been reached. The Minister must understand that the trade unions tell us that they are very unhappy about the manner in which the Government are handling the provision of the Bill which transfers people out of government employment into public employment.
The adviser to the Minister can probably spot each amendment and say which trade union has proposed it. I am prepared to acknowledge that we would not have spent any of the time which we have spent tonight on the political aspects of the Bill —and that has been a minor point on industrial relations—without the advice of the trade unions. They have not proposed these amendments because they wish to write amendments and briefs, print articles and hold public rallies and meetings. They are very unhappy. All that we can do is to inform the Minister that against that background he will be telling the Committee not that all is well but that he is doing as well as he can.
Colleagues of the Minister have used the words—though not tonight—that the terms will mirror those enjoyed at present. All the employees

399
want is the same. They do not want euphemisms, adjectives that can be interpreted or misinterpreted. They do not want something that is broadly like something else or virtually the same. They want the same.
I can understand the Minister telling us that there are problems. Frankly, the biggest problem is how the Government weight the debt or potential debt of the new employer in such a way that it will be less attractive and not be sold. The Minister told us that there would be a comparable package. I speak as someone with a little experience but nothing like that of those from the trade unions who are advising me. Some elements of the package will obviously change: the Minister talked in terms of some being less and some more. Can he tell us that, although there will be changes that will suit the Minister and the prospective purchaser, at the end of the day the package will have to be broadly acceptable to the trade unions?
If the Minister is telling us that there will be changes in a number of facets which are mentioned in the amendment—invalidity benefits, old-age benefits, survivors' benefits, index linking, contribution rates, the pension scheme, redundancies—I can understand that. Can he tell us that he will not be satisfied unless the prospective new employer comes up with a package which is acceptable not just to him but also to the trade unions? I fear from previous experience that the new employer will seek to obtain the minimum terms, which may be the minimum terms acceptable to the Minister but not to the trade unions.
The Minister used another phrase, "suffer no disadvantage". It was the intention of the Government that the package should be such that employees would suffer no disadvantage. Do we understand from that that, if the trade unions demonstrate that people are suffering disadvantage, the Minister will not approve the terms in the package?
Lord Hesketh: The first and most important point is that I can repeat the last of the several undertakings that I gave in my first reply. As a last resort, if these routes proved impossible, we should compensate the staff for any pensions disadvantage. That states the Government's position very clearly.
However, it is perfectly possible that at the end of the day the trade unions may say, "That is not good enough because the real desire we have is not to go out at all". In those circumstances I cannot provide the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, wishes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I understand that. Of course governments have the absolute right in pursuit of their policy and politics to say, "This is what we intend to do". There is no argument, I am not arguing about that. We are talking in terms of a realistic trade union negotiator recognising that the Government have rights as well as anybody else. He will look objectively at the package which he has to sell to his members. I do not speak in a pejorative sense: he has to avoid difficulties at a certain stage.
400
It will not be in the interests of the employees to create difficulties which are unjust or unworthy. I can envisage a circumstance in which the trade union negotiator is told by his members that the terms of sale which he is trying to sell to them do not add up to a reasonable package. However, I believe that the Minister has said all that he can tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) No member of the executive, administrative and support staff shall transfer unless he or she has previously consented to do so in writing.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Dean and myself. It has a familiar ring to the argument that we went through about consent. It is worded slightly differently:
"No member of the executive, administrative and support staff shall transfer unless he or she has previously consented to do so in writing".
There are very good reasons why this grade or these grades are singled out. The short answer is that there is an anticipated diminishing need for the skills of executive, administrative and support staff over the next two to three years. Such staff who have no building skills are career civil servants. They will be required to effect the PSA's transition from vote accounted government department to commercially accounted building firm. Once that work is complete, they face redundancy.
Both the National Union of Civil and Public Servants and the First Division Association estimate that between 70 and 80 per cent. of the 5,000 staff in the executive, administrative and support groups have no long-term future with PSA plc. Privately, PSA's senior managers concede that such estimates are realistic. The transition from government department to plc to which I refer is not merely a matter of introducing and proving new computer systems but of devising, deciding on, introducing and testing new procedures, codes and guides across the PSA, together with staff retraining and communications.
At the same time, the new business will be feeling its way in a highly competitive market. It does not expect to retain all its existing workload in the short or medium term or expect to balance this loss by winning new work. In consequence, after the transitional work is complete and the transitional period is over, staff face redundancy. I do not believe that the Committee would wish to pass a Bill which condemns loyal and hardworking civil servants to this fate. I believe that in those circumstances it would be immoral.
When the staff became aware of what the Government had in store for them, they quite naturally began to protest. As a response to one of the protests, Christopher Chope, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, caused a general letter to be sent to employees who had raised those concerns. It read:
"If there are individual staff who are particularly concerned to remain in the public sector then there may be opportunities of posts in other departments before privatisation, which is still at least two to three years away".
I am told that the Minister has gone back on his word. Can the noble Lord help us tonight by responding to the words of Mr Chope? Both Mr. Chope and the PSA's top managers are pressing the Cabinet for permission to implement quickly one of the provisions of the Bill. They wish to set the PSA up as a government-owned company—a so-called Go-co —as early as possible, perhaps as early as 1st April next year. On that day therefore all PSA staff will cease to be civil servants and will become company employees.
It will not be possible over the next 12 to 18 months to relocate all those who wish to leave the PSA for other Civil Service work and effect the transition and continue to manage business. The transition will take some two to three years to complete. Executive staff will be forced out of the Civil Service once the Go-co is formed. Since they will be required only in the short term they face redundancy thereafter. It is not only immoral but will be very costly indeed. Making staff redundant during the period of the Go-co will be a burden on the taxpayer running into many millions of pounds. It is crazy to waste taxpayers' money in this way when the overwhelming majority of the staff could be found jobs in other government departments. Many of them have skills which are in short supply in other departments—skills in accountancy, information technology, contracts, training, personnel and so on.
The new owners of the PSA who are likely to be its senior managers are not concerned at the redundancy costs involved. That is because the Bill before us allows the Government to write off all Go-co debts and liabilities before the sale of shares at the end of 1992. Therefore the new owners will not inherit the redundancy debt but the taxpayer will. It is unnecessary because there is a means by which such staff could continue their Civil Service careers and willingly help the PSA effect a successful transition. That way is through secondment.
Secondment has been proposed by the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. It is an eminently sensible solution to a very real problem. It provides staff with a risk-free opportunity to work for PSA Go-co, and perhaps PSA plc, with a return ticket to the Civil Service when they are no longer required. It provides the PSA, its senior managers and Ministers with willing, well motivated staff using their skills to help the PSA prepare for and begin life in the commercial world. It would save perhaps millions of pounds of taxpayers' money because when staff were no longer needed they would in the main return to Civil Service jobs and not receive redundancy payments.
I have to tell the Committee that when executive, administrative and support staff in the Crown Suppliers were offered secondment about 70 per cent. decided to volunteer. For that reason the Government will not be using the Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment Regulations to force these staff, who make up 50 per cent. of the Crown Suppliers' workforce, into the private sector.
Does the Minister wish for dogmatic reasons to move people out of the service and not offer them
402
a ticket back no matter what the consequences? My honourable friend in another place, Mr. Tam Dalyell, described those moves as callous and barbarian. I do not wish to see this Chamber go down that route. The amendment affects a different group of people, who can be assisted in the way that I have suggested. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I do not deny that the staff of the PSA and the TCS face a period of considerable change and upheaval. But it has been made very clear both in this Chamber and in another place that, as concerns their terms and conditions of service, the staff will not be disadvantaged by the privatisations.
Even so, I accept that some staff may not wish to move into the private sector and would rather stay within the Civil Service. The Government have already taken some measures in relation to the TCS to ensure that the staff have as much choice as possible consistent with the objective of a successful privatisation. But I am sure that the Committee will agree that if the privatisation is to succeed the TCS must be staffed properly. In particular, it cannot be deprived of all its expert staff.
During 1989, administrative and ancillary employees in the TCS were asked whether they wished to volunteer for secondment with the new owner. The staff in these grades are generalists and represent about half of the 1,100 employed by the TCS. Almost 70 per cent. of those eligible volunteered for secondment and will remain civil servants during their secondment period. They will also be free to accept permanent offers of employment by the new owner. Those not offered permanent posts and those who do not wish to accept them will be offered alternative Civil Service posts. Of those staff offered secondment, those who opted not to be seconded are being moved to other Civil Service posts before the sale takes place. The TCS has decided to make a significant reduction in the number of its furnishing professional staff As a result, nearly 100 staff are being given the opportunity to retire early on favourable terms.
It was not possible to offer secondment to the professional and industrial statT in the TCS because there was no certainty of finding alternative Civil Service posts for all those who might have wanted them. Instead, these staff have been given an undertaking that they will be given an opportunity to state their preferences about whether they wish to remain in the Civil Service or to move into the private sector. This is likely to be when the terms on offer from the purchaser are known. Management has already given a commitment to use its best endeavours to meet such staff preferences, bearing in mind the needs of the TCS business and the availability of other posts.
So far I have confined myself to the TCS, where the sale is more advanced. It is impossible to be as specific about PSA staff at this stage, not simply because the sale is still some way off but also because far greater numbers are involved: there are 22,000 PSA employees in the United Kingdom. However, I can assure the Committee that the Government are conscious of the need to take account of the

403
wishes of PSA staff as far as it is possible without jeopardising the viability of the organisation in the private sector.
The Government intend to establish the preferences of PSA's staff and to fill posts there with staff who wish to stay with it as it moves into the private sector. A booklet has recently been issued to the PSA's non-industrial staff asking them to record their preferences. It is clear that changing workloads within the PSA as a consequence of untying and the drive for greater efficiency will mean that alternative postings will need to be sought for significant numbers of PSA staff in any event. As the opportunity arises, we intend to post out as many as possible of those who wish to move to alternative Civil Service posts.
But it would be wrong to leave the impression that there can be any guarantee that the preferences of all such staff can be met either within the PSA or elsewhere within the Civil Service or that natural wastage will be sufficient to cope with any surplus. While no guarantees can be given to staff who wish to remain within the PSA, it is nevertheless clear that many of the staff who wish to return to the Civil Service after the creation of the Go-co and after privatisation may apply for jobs in other government departments. Subject to their past records and their current skills matching departments' requirements, their applications are likely to be sympathetically considered.
I apologise for having repeated the remarks I made earlier. On the basis of what I have just said, I hope that the noble Lord may be able to consider his position.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am once more grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are employed by the Government. A small group of highly trained and experienced people is referred to in this amendment. I know that people sometimes fail to get a job because they are too well qualified. We are talking here of people who want to stay in the public service and who recognise that there will not be a place for them in a slimmed-down PSA.
They are genuinely willing to move. I have always understood that part of the conditions of service of civil servants is that they must be willing and able to move. We are not talking about someone who says that because he lives in Hackney, Bromley or Enfield he will not take a job that means that he will have to move. That situation would certainly be outwith redundancy terms.
Again, I think that the Minister has shown some sympathy with the points which I have made. He repeated that employees will not be disadvantaged. I very much hope that his optimism is not misplaced. We shall read with care what he said and we may return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Transferee companies]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not exercise any powers under this section unless the Property Services Agency or the Crown Suppliers is maintained as a national network.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to seek to maintain the unity of the PSA to ensure that it is not privatised until it is commercially viable. The amendments to Clause 3 refer to the transfer of the existing safety requirements of the public sector into the private sector. Earlier amendments to Clause 1 related to the tentative way in which the privatised PSA will move. We are sensitive to the fact that the Government intend to privatise the PSA in April of next year and at that point we shall have very little work to consider.
As late as February of last year Mr. Christopher Chope was telling Parliament that it would not be right to sell the PSA until a sufficient track record of profitable commercial operation was established. I should like the Minister to tell us what has happened since that time. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: As I understand it, the purpose of this amendment is to prevent changes to the existing pattern of the PSA and TCS offices. In our view the amendment would place unacceptable restrictions upon the commercial management of the businesses. This would be damaging to both the organisations and their staff. The amendment might also rule out the separate privatisation of any division or region of the businesses if that was thought to be most appropriate.
To insist on a national network would, in the Government's view, prevent the businesses from evolving to take account of changes in the market and in the customer base already taking place. I have no doubt that both organisations will wish to compete, and compete vigorously, for business. But that does not mean that they should necessarily compete for business in every part of the country, or that they should maintain their existing pattern of offices. Such restrictions on their freedom of action could not be tolerated by commercial organisations, which must be free to decide where to establish premises and where to concentrate activities. The businesses which make up the PSA services and the Crown Suppliers have provided services to the public sector throughout the United Kingdom. I expect that their successors will wish to continue to do so. In our view, however, it would be wrong to impose on them a rigid framework. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will decide to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The words,
"it would be wrong to impose on them a rigid framework",
ring in my ears. It all depends on whether the "rigid framework" which the Minister is invited to impose is acceptable to us. We are most unhappy that at the end of the day we shall see a dissolution of what

405
hitherto has been a proud and successful public service department. There is no doubting the fact that it is the Government's intention to dissolve this fine public servant and fine public service.
All the movements made, which have been presaged in this Bill and in statements, will mean that we shall cease to have access as of right in the public sector to the expertise, the knowledge and the intelligence which has been built up by so many good public servants over the years. It is a tragedy. However, it appears that the Government will not be moved. I shall take advice on the matter and may return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Winding up of Crown Suppliers trading fund]:
8.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 36, leave out from ("to") end of line 37 and insert ("affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is, as is well understood by those who follow such matters, to ensure that Parliament has the Opportunity to consider the detail of what the Government propose. The amendment is necessary because of the extreme vagueness of the Government's plans and because of the particular nature of this privatisation.
There are two main arguments for the amendment. First, Clause 1 reveals that the Government have no clear idea about how the PSA and TCS will be privatised. They cannot say whether the PSA will be sold as one business or as several; indeed, the Minister has repeated that fact tonight. Further, they have no idea whether the PSA is saleable because they have no firm evidence. In my view, the privatisation is proposed to advance the ideology of the Government.
There has been no study commissioned to ascertain whether privatisation is feasible because the previous surveys and inquiries which were carried out turned out to be definintely against the thrust of the present legislation. Therefore it is right that Parliament is assured of an opportunity to consider the detail of the Government's plans.
Secondly, the Government have failed to give any firm assurance about the way in which staff interests will be protected. I exonerate the Minister from this, as I sense that he has a genuine understanding of the anxieties which I have raised. But we nevertheless believe that the detail for which I am asking in respect of such matters should be given to the Committee before we let the matter through. In effect, this amendment concerns the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, this concerns the affirmative resolution procedure. I am only sorry that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is not present in the Chamber
406
to rehearse the arguments, which he could do so much more lucidly than I, as to why we should not accept this amendment.
Members of the Committee will be aware that the purpose of Clause 4 is for the Secretary of State to wind up the Crown Suppliers' trading fund, including the power to write off any outstanding debt. The clause also refers to public dividend capital. TCS does not at present have any such capital and it is not proposed that any should be credited to the fund in the period remaining until privatisation.
NLF debt will not transfer from the trading fund to the TCS company. The proceeds of sale will, therefore, be applied to repay the debt. If the proceeds from the sale exceed the outstanding NLF debt, the balance will be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. If however there is a shortfall, part of the NLF debt will have to be written off Subsection 1(a) allows for this. A key factor as to whether there will need to be debt write-off will be the treatment of Wellington House, whose value is considerably in excess of the outstanding debt. If the freehold of Wellington House is not sold with the business, it may be necessary for there to be some debt write-off. But the Government would then have retained the asset of Wellington House, so this would be an accounting adjustment.
Subsection (4), to which amendment 28 relates, proposes that an order under this clause would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. This amendment would change the procedure to an affirmative resolution of both Houses.
I have explained that the purpose of an order under Clause 4 would be perfectly straightforward, and I do not believe it would be right to burden your Lordships' House with it, unless, when the order is tabled, it is believed that it raises issues of principle. That is why the Government have proposed the negative resolution procedure. I invite your Lordships to confirm that approach and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: As the noble Lord said, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not in favour of the affirmative resolution procedure during the lifetime of this Government. We shall see what his views are in a little while when the Government changes. I am certain that he will see a great deal of merit in inviting the Government, if they have nothing to hide, to come before the House of their own volition.
I understand the powers of the negative resolution procedure; but simply to say to the Committee, "We are now satisfied that we have got it right and we want your approval" is unsatisfactory. I do not cast any aspersions on the Minister or his colleagues by using such a clumsy phrase as "anything to hide"; but it would be an assurance to those outside this Chamber whose livelihoods and communities are at stake if they were satisfied that when all the negotiations have taken place, when everything has been considered, the Government will come back and say, "These are the details, the nitty-gritty". But

407
the Government are not willing to do that. I believe it is to their detriment, and it will make those outside this Chamber a little more uneasy.
In concluding the debate, the Minister has been very fair to the Committee and to me tonight. He has given a lot of information and at the next stage of the Bill I am certain that there will be some business to be done, but what it will be I am not in a position to say. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has responded to my requests for information tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Expenses and receipts]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title and extent]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Money Laundering Convictions
8.55 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether Treasury Ministers propose to discuss with the Governor of the Bank of England the recent conviction of subsidiaries of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International on money laundering charges in the United States Federal Court in Florida.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think the House was looking forward to having the opportunity of listening to the one Treasury Minister who sits in this House replying to the debate. Indeed, this debate was arranged through the usual channels. Only earlier this evening I heard that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would not be here. I regret to say that he did not give me any explanation for that. It is extremely unfortunate, to put it no higher, that a Treasury Minister who has some responsibility for these matters is not in his place. What is even more surprising is that the noble Earl should not be here given the fact that when the matter was raised through oral Questions he—inadvertently, I am sure—seriously misled the House in his reply. The noble Earl has subsequently made no effort to correct the record; I find it even odder therefore that he is not here today to explain why it was that he misled the House on that occasion.
Perhaps I may now turn to the issue which is raised in the Question. I believe that it is a matter of some importance. It relates to money laundering by a bank which trades in the United Kingdom. The bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, admitted in the Federal Court in Tampa, Florida, after plea-bargaining negotiations
408
with the federal authorities, that two of its wholly owned subsidiaries had indeed been guilty of such offences. As a result the federal authorities confiscated 14-8 million dollars of the bank's assets, representing laundered money which had been passed through the bank's accounts.
The proceedings in the United States followed a long investigation by the US customs authorities in which the British customs played a part. We learn that as a result of an Answer to a parliamentary Question given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons. I understand that what happened was that under-cover customs agents posing as money launderers were told at a meeting which was taped that there was an inner circle of highly placed officials inside the bank who could be trusted to carry out the business of laundering the proceeds of cocaine sales.
One of the more significant issues which arose in Florida related to the former dictator of Panama, General Noriega, who was said to have used that bank, together with others, to launder the millions of dollars paid to him by major drug traffickers.
The Assistant United States Attorney, who was prosecuting in the case, indicated that the authorities had tapes of many other meetings and telephone calls in Florida, Paris and London, recording no less than 18 separate conversations during which officials of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International openly discussed the laundering of drug money on behalf of the Medellin drug cartel.
The admissions made by the bank following that investigation, and made to the federal judge, could hardly have been more damaging to the bank's reputation. Here was the world's fifth largest private bank, an institution with 424 offices in 73 countries, pleading guilty to the gravest charges of impropriety levelled against any bank since the inception of the campaign in the United States against the international drug traffickers.
I turn now to the response of the British authorities to the situation. I accept at once and indeed welcome the steps that have been taken by the Government to deal with international money laundering. It is an issue which lies at the very heart of the struggle against the threat of the international cocaine and heroin barons.
I also welcome the publication last week of the report of the Financial Action Task Force which was established after the Group of Seven meeting in Paris. I believe that the Prime Minister put this matter correctly when she dealt with the threat that was posed to our society by drug smugglers at the world ministerial drugs conference in London on 9th April. She spoke of,
"the insidious threat to our way of life from drugs and from the evils they bring in their wake: disease, corruption, violence, crime, breaking up families and destroying young lives".
I believe that that in no way exaggerates the threat that is posed to the world community and to the United Kingdom in particular. This country faces an exceptionally serious situation, the gravity of which is still not appreciated by some of our fellow citizens.
I believe that a great deal has been done by the Government, the police, the customs and many

409
others to deal with the threat. Unhappily, there is still not a great deal of evidence that we are succeeding. Tonight we are discussing one element of that threat; namely, money laundering and the conduct of one bank which operates in the United Kingdom.
Before I return to the conduct of that bank, I believe it is right to remind the House of what the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons had to say about the dimensions of the scale of money laundering in the United Kingdom. In its seventh report at paragraph 20 the committee stated:
"The National Drugs Intelligence Co-ordinator (NDIC) estimated that there is at least £1,800 million derived from drug trafficking in the United Kingdom. In its written memorandum, the NDIU noted that such vast amounts of money circulating within the legitimate banking system may have a destabilising effect on smaller financial institutions. The NDIC also indicated that, despite the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the United Kingdom continued to be a major centre for money laundering. Indeed, he said that the United Kingdom was 'regarded by the United States, Canada and some others as an offshore banking system' ".
I find that a most disturbing statement, coming as it does from the most senior police officer in this country who is responsible for dealing with the threat posed by the international drug traffickers. I fear that our problems are sometimes not made a great deal easier by the attitude of the Bank of England in this matter. Again I shall quote from the report of the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. At paragraph 80 it states:
"The difficulties in securing convictions for money laundering offences raise the question of whether changes to the law are required. In the light of the dangers in Britain being perceived in North America as 'an offshore banking system' referred to by the NDIC, we asked the Bank of England and the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers how they believed the law against money laundering could be strengthened. We were extremely concerned that neither body, with their considerable combined expertise of the financial world, were able to propose any changes to the law in response to the scale of the threat facing the financial system. If bodies such as the Bank of England and the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers are as passive as appears to be the case in responding to the significant threat facing financial institutions from money laundering, the Government must take the initiative".
I find the relationship between the statement that I quoted from the national drugs intelligence co-ordinator and that judgment by the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons rather striking. I fear that it indicates a degree of complacency and a desire not to rock the boat which are worrying. I believe that such attitudes impede the work of those who are responsible for enforcing the criminal law and also those who have the responsibility of considering whether there should be changes in our criminal law. I must admit that that does not fill me with total unqualified confidence that the Bank of England is necessarily being sufficiently rigorous in dealing with the representatives of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International in London following the prosecution in Florida.
I accept at once that I may be being unfair to the Bank of England. That is certainly not my purpose, but the Bank can hardly be surprised that there is a suspicion abroad, not least in the United States, that it sometimes does not have a great deal of enthusiasm for firm action in matters of this kind, When I pressed the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on
410
19th March to tell us what action the Bank of England proposed to take concerning the BCCI following its conviction in Florida, he said, at col. 6 of Hansard, that,
"the confidentiality requirements of Part V of the Banking Act 1987 prevent the Government from commenting on a general point relating to the Bank of England".
A few moments later he told us that were he to do so he could face a term of two years' imprisonment or a fine. He added:
"Perhaps the noble Lord would like that, but I would not".
When challenged about the accuracy of the statement that he had just made to the House the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said:
"Noble Lords opposite may be right, but that is my advice".
We are in a position to reassure the absent noble Earl. I have no desire, and I am sure that no other noble Lord has any desire, to cause him to be sent to prison. As we all know from recent experience the prisons are fairly crowded in any event. However, as I hope the noble Earl's advisers will by now have told him, no one can be prosecuted for anything which is said in this Chamber or that of the House of Commons—unless the Government propose to repeal the Bill of Rights. I assume that that is not part of their policy.
I hope that the absent noble Earl, freed from his fears about imprisonment, will be able to help the House rather more than he did on 19th March, through his representative the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who has had the misfortune to pick up his brief at a very late stage.
First, does the noble Lord representing the Government on this occasion agree that the Banking Act requires banks operating in this country to conduct their business in a prudent manner and with integrity? That, I believe, is a requirement of the statute. Secondly, does he agree that the Bank of England has to satisfy itself that owners and controllers are fit and proper persons?
Perhaps I may put this point. These are not matters, I can reassure the noble Lord, of confidentiality referred to in Part V of the Banking Act. The question is a simple one. Is the Bank of England satisfied that in relation to the BCCI the answer to both those questions is yes? Indeed, it would be astonishing were the answer to be anything other than an unqualified yes. Presumably, were it not, the Bank of England would already have taken some action.
Next, and this issue is referred to directly in the Question on the Order Paper before the House, has the Chancellor or any of his ministerial colleagues raised the issue of the operation of the BCCI in London with the Governor of the Bank of England following the bank's conviction in Florida? If, as we are told repeatedly, Ministers are prepared to take any action to drive the leaders of the drug industry out of business, is it conceivable that Ministers have not even bothered to mention the case—I repeat, the largest and most serious case to come before the federal courts in the United States in relation to money laundering offences—to the Governor of the Bank of England?
Of course the Governor is not a free and independent spirit. He is directly accountable to the

411
Chancellor of the Exchequer for his actions. What many of us want to know is whether the matter has been raised with the Governor. I hope that tonight we shall receive a clear and unequivocal answer to that question.
I also hope that we shall not receive any further suggestions that this is not in any way a matter for Ministers. Quite apart from anything else, that does not have to be true. Under Section 80 of the Banking Act the Treasury may, after consulting the Bank of England, by regulation impose on overseas institutions such requirements as the Treasury may consider appropriate. The power could hardly be wider.
The debate this evening relates to a matter of high public importance. We are discussing a scandal. We are examining the conduct of a bank with considerable power and influence which has been convicted, through its subsidiaries, in the criminal courts of the United States of grave offences against the world community. We are asking Ministers to assure themselves and Parliament that all appropriate steps are being taken by the British regulatory authority —the Bank of England —to deal with this bank, operating as it does on a considerable scale in the United Kingdom.
Finally, I turn to the Prime Minister's speech on 9th April. She said this:
"The coming decade has been proclaimed as the United Nations decade against drug abuse. This must not be just a label or a slogan. It must represent our united will and determination to prosecute the campaign against drugs".
That statement represents our views. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government will be able to demonstrate, not by rhetoric but by action, that it is also the will of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Grenwich, for having put down this Unstarred Question which, as he said, raises matters of considerable importance not only to the banking community but to the nation as a whole.
Like the noble Lord, I very much regret that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is unable to be with us this evening. As the noble Lord pointed out, this matter involves the Treasury itself by virtue of its position vis-à-vis the Bank of England where under Section 4 of the original Act it has powers to give general direction. It is not, at any rate as yet, an independent bank; it is the Government's bank and is answerable to the Government themselves.
Moreover, the Government, and particularly the Treasury, have another responsibility in relation to drug trafficking under the provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 where they are responsible for the suitable deployment and actions of the Customs and Excise. There can be no doubt therefore as to the Government's involvement.
The noble Earl would have known that much wider questions concerning money laundering would be raised in the debate than just the recent case in
412
the United States involving the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. He must have know that after a recent meeting of bankers belonging to the Group of Seven a task force was set up to investigate the question of money laundering. A copy of the report, which was published only on 18th April, came into my possession today, since when I have had an opportunity to examine it. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not err in the slightest when he points out the gravity of the question of money laundering in the international banking community.
This Unstarred Question raises the position of a particular bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, whose headquarters are in Luxembourg but which operates out of Leadenhall Street. It employs 600 people and has 43 branches in the United Kingdom. I am not sure about the status of the Leadenhall establishment or its branches in relation to the Bank of England and regulations laid down under the Banking Act. It is one of those matters on which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, could have been questioned. However, the question of the credibility of the bank has by inference been raised in the nature of the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Here I wish to utter a word of caution. When the affairs of an institution or a named body are discussed, particularly within the privileges of Parliament, it is necessary that one proceeds with great caution before passing judgment on the ostensible conduct of the body concerned, which in this case is the BCCI. I have had the opportunity of examining at some length the press reports that have appeared in various reputable sections of the press, including the Financial Times, the Observer, the Economist and the Daily Telegraph, which have set out their accounts of what happened in Tampa, Florida, and have given, at any rate by inference, their judgment upon those events. I have been in Parliament long enough to know that just as trial by television is dangerous, so is trial by the press.
So far, for reasons that are unknown to me but are not necessarily disreputable, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International has not seen fit to rebut some of the more colourful accounts that have been given of the proceedings at Tampa and the attitude of the US authorities that have appeared in the press. However, I think it is true to say that in so far as BCCI was concerned, under the essential terms of the settlement arrived at in Tampa of some £14-5 million—I invite the House to take note of that figure in view of the figures that I shall give later—and under the terms of plea bargaining, which, mercifully, is so far unknown in the United Kingdom, all charges against the parent company, BCCI Holdings, and BCC's Colombian subsidiary, Banco de Credito y Comercio de Colombia, have been dismissed and all drug trafficking charges against the bank entities which were completely without foundation have also been dismissed. One does not gather that from reading the press reports.
Money laundering is a very complex operation and, believe it or not, it is very difficult to trace. The United States has adopted one measure—with or without success, I do not know—of insisting on the monitoring of every bank transaction in excess of

413
10,000 dollars, which is checked through a vast computer network. But essentially money laundering is composed of three stages. First, there is the placement side of the transaction, which means collecting together, centrally or regionally, funds accumulated by the drug barons and main dealers, who then proceed to take it through a second stage which is called layering.
I appreciate that noble Lords are not involved in drug trafficking and therefore will not appreciate the significance of those terms. In essence layering means collecting together moneys of a different currency and distributing or changing that money widely over a series of bureaux de change where, as noble lords will know, currencies of all kinds can be obtained. For example, dollars can be taken into 1,000 or even 2,000 bureaux de change which can be found quite widely in the United States and elsewhere. One can then obtain pounds, Swiss francs, French francs, pesetas, escudos, marks or whatever. Those different currencies are collected together and one goes on to the next stage of money laundering, which s called integration. That means that the various lots of currencies gathered together can then be converted into either property or other assets with an appearance of legitimacy—or sometimes actual legitimacy—or else can be deposited in various banks in different currencies.
It is most difficult for any bank purely by the inspection of accounts—and the banks in the United Kingdom, including BCCI, have computer screens to check accounts—and a matter of some complexity, bearing in mind that these transactions are often accomplished with the speed of light, to determine whether a certain transaction in a particular type of currency is likely to be associated with drug money laundering. The problems facing any bank, let alone BCCI, are therefore considerable.
As I mentioned to your Lordships, the Government and the Bank of England took the very sensible step at the meeting of the G7 group of bankers of initiating a task force to investigate the question and to report in detail. I have not had the opportunity of reading the annexures to the report. I have read the entire report. However, I can tell noble Lords that the task force came to the conclusion that the total amount of money from drugs available for laundering amounted to 84 billion dollars, of which the amount under plea bargaining admitted by BCCI amounts, if my arithmetic is correct, to 0-00017 per cent. of the total available for laundering.
I accept immediately the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the problem is widespread. But in proportion, the amount—under plea bargaining, the somewhat unique conditions available in the United States, and with the political pressures available in the United States—is a very small amount of the total involved.
Much has been said about BCCI in the various journals that I have mentioned. I have no connection with BCCI. I know none of its directors. I do not bank there. I do not have even a credit card there or anything of that kind. However, since, if I may say so, it is part of my profession, I have looked
414
through these documents with what I hope your Lordships may feel has been a professional eye. I have the accounts of BCCI for the year ended 31st December 1988, which were signed by Price Waterhouse as auditors on 11th April 1989.1 assume that presently a further set of accounts for 1989 will become available. I do not complain that they are likely to be issued slightly later than those for 1988. However, it is quite clear from those accounts that the bank has a very considerable gross turnover of some 2 billion dollars. It has assets of 20 billion dollars, of which the unusually high proportion of 47 per cent. of assets is liquid. It has total reserves of 1-5 billion dollars. It has increased very rapidly over the past four or five years.
From other sources—notably by perusal of Congress records—I have been able to find that BCCI was of considerable assistance to the former President of the United States, President Carter, in setting up a network of banks especially founded to enable the developing countries to conduct banking transactions with one another. That has been singularly successful. In spite of being one of the five large private banks to which the noble Lord quite correctly referred, BCCI has not been involved to any great extent in the disastrous third world indebtedness with all the problems that have arisen as a consequence. Those are problems that lie very heavily at the door of some banks that have so far not attracted any attention, and probably quite rightly so, in connection with drug money laundering.
We have a bank which, on the face of its balance sheet audited by a renowned British firm of chartered accountants and in the main founded with the approval of the former President of the United States, President Carter, who spoke highly of it, is caught up in a scandal involving 000017 per cent. of the estimated total of the world's drug money now being laundered. Indeed, it does not seek to escape the liability of its servants lower down the scale.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I suggest that it is proper that the Government should have conversations with those in the Bank of England about BCCI and the remainder of the money. According to United States authorities, a large proportion of that is swishing round in the British banking system; it is not in Tampa but in London. We should be grateful if, in the absence of his noble friend Lord Caithness, the Minister would indicate what conversations are taking place along those general lines.
At the Vienna Conference in 1988 the laundering of drug money was discussed. Approximately 80 nations signed the convention but before it can come into operation it must be ratified by 20 of the countries concerned. So far only four countries have done so, and I regret to say that they do not include the United Kingdom. The countries which have ratified the convention are China, the Bahamas, Nigeria and Senegal. I believe that if Her Majesty's Government wish to press forward with the recommendations set out in the Vienna Convention—which were fortified in the report of the task force set up by G7 —they would be wise to ratify it forthwith. They should come to the House

415
with a full explanation of the reasons why they seek Parliament's approval for the ratification of the convention.
The Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for which my party is deeply grateful, raises questions which go far beyond the matter of BCCL They go into practically every nook and cranny of the banking system in the United Kingdom and in Europe. The House will wish to hear about the actions which the Government and the Bank of England propose to take in order to pursue the matter with greater resolution than has so far appeared. They must not be diverted from the essential and mammoth task—and it will be difficult to accomplish —by press reports of an action which took place in Tampa dealing, in my view unjustly, with one single bank and company.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised an important Question about the dreadful activities relating to drug money and the way in which huge sums are laundered. However, perhaps I may say that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington hit the nail on the head when he spoke of the ease with which those transations can be laundered—if that is the word—and the difficulties of the banks in keeping up with what is happening in the millions of transactions which take place every day.
I am not at all sure that I would not be right if I said, quite apart from the particular bank mentioned in this Unstarred Question, that there are other people in the City of London and outside of it who are saying quietly to themselves, "There but for the grace of God go I" —not because of ill-will or malevolence but because of the very formidable difficulties which exist in that field. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has outlined some of those.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he did not wish to be unfair to the Governor of the Bank of England. I hope also that he does not intend to be unfair to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Unlike my noble friend Lord Bruce, I happen to know the directors. I was introduced to them through President Carter at a dinner given for him in London some years ago. I was immediately impressed by the quality of the president of the bank. Unfortunately, a year ago he was struck down by a stroke and a heart attack and has been unable to operate since that time.
His philosophy is one which, if carried into his operations, I find wholly admirable, as I believe would the noble Lord, Lord Harris. In my capacity as a trustee of a very large charitable organisation into which I do not wish to go in any detail, I have been struck by the immense generosity of the leaders of the Bank of Credit and Commmerce International in that sphere. They have been so generous because of their philosophy and for no other reason.
When the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asks whether they are fit and proper people to take charge of this bank, I can only say to him and to your Lordships
416
that from my knowledge of the president of the bank, of the chief executive and two others whom I know—and that is the limit of my knowledge of the bank—I have no hesitation in saying that in my judgment they are certainly people of the highest integrity and probity. I feel that I should put that on record from my knowledge of them.
I add that ha'porth as I am probably one of the few people in the Chamber who know them. As my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said, it is true that they are rather secretive. That is not only because this is a private bank but is also because of a different culture. In every sense it is an international bank—and I shall say a few words about that later—in a great many countries. I have no detailed knowledge of their operations and do not wish to know them. I only know them in a sideways manner because one talks about all sorts of things when one is discussing one's major interests. What struck me about their philosophy and approach, which was new, was that because of their culture they are not used to disclosing their innermost thoughts very clearly. That is perhaps a proper tradition in banking circles. However, I was struck by the fact that the purpose which they carried out was to finance trade between third world countries. That struck me as being a very desirable objective and one which should be encouraged. Also, perhaps I may say that that is of benefit to the City of London.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked how the Bank of England is going to deal with this bank. I am not sure what he meant by that. However, I know how I should like to deal with it. This international bank does not really have a proper home. I should like to deal with the bank by bringing it under the close surveillance and supervision of the Bank of England. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, nods his head, so I assume that he does not disagree with me.
The alternative would be to drive it out of London, as I understand it has been driven out of Florida as a result of this conviction by a subsidiary of the bank. That would be wrong for a number of reasons.
To put it at its highest, it would be wrong because this very large bank, operating in so many countries, the trustee and holder of such tremendous funds, should not be driven from pillar to post. The assets of its customers are too important for that. It would be a very serious matter if that were to happen. The bank also brings considerable advantage to the City of London, if under proper supervision and control in the normal way.
I hope that Treasury Ministers will discuss this matter with the Governor of the Bank of England. I agree that there is no reason why a Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot raise any issue with the Governor of the Bank of England if he wishes to do so. I certainly used to talk about a great many things. I hope he will discuss this matter. I hope he will say that this is a very important bank which, in my judgment (and I can go no further than that), has very high standards. The people whom I know in the bank are men of propriety and integrity. We should like to see the bank brought properly under the control of the Bank of England in the same way

417
as other banks which operate in the City of London. That would be the best solution.
That is all I wish to say. In some ways there has been a campaign against the bank, a political campaign in its broadest sense—not a party political campaign. It is a bank which is rather strange to the City of London. We all know that the City of London sometimes finds it difficult to absorb people who have a slightly different philosophy from the way in which the City operates. When they are accepted, they are embraced and become part of the family.
The purpose and philosophy of the bank are honourable, and those who are at the head of it are fit and proper people to control it. It should be brought within the embrace of the City of London. It could become a great strength without losing its international reputation and spread, which is perhaps wider than most of the banks that operate out of the City of London.
9.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by apologising to the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Bruce, for the absence of my noble friend the Paymaster General. As noble Lords are probably aware, he is at the ECOFIN Council today and, sadly, is unable to be here. I should stress, as my noble friends from these Benches stressed earlier, that all noble Lords speaking from the Dispatch Box speak on behalf of the Government. The fact that my noble friend is absent is not necessarily relevant.
I start by dealing with a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He implied that my noble friend the Paymaster General had misled the House. As a matter of policy Ministers always regard themselves as bound by the confidentiality of provisions of the banking Act and would not disclose information subject to those confidentiality restraints.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, that does not deal with the point at all. The noble Earl told us that, were he to answer the question put to him, he may be subject to a term of imprisonment. He said it twice. Is the noble Lord apologising on behalf of the noble Earl for having inadvertently misled the House, or is he seriously suggesting that the noble Earl could have been sentenced to imprisonment for answering the questions put to him from these and other Benches?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall repeat what I said. As a matter of policy Ministers regard themselves as being bound by the confidentiality provisions. I shall certainly pass on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to my noble friend. If he wishes to comment on them, no doubt he will.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord is not doing himself justice. He has been asked specifically whether a Minister of the Crown, answering a question in this House, could lay himself open to criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Is the answer to that question yes or no?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have already answered that question. I repeat the answer I gave. Ministers always feel themselves bound by the confidentiality provisions and it would be wrong to break that binding. As I said, I shall certainly pass on the remarks of the noble Lord to my noble friend the Paymaster General.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asks whether Treasury Ministers propose to discuss with the Governor of the Bank of England the Bank of Credit and Commerce International's recent acceptance of liability in connection with money laundering charges brought before the United States Federal Court in Florida. Before replying to this question I should like to make two general points about the statutory basis for banking supervision.
The first point concerns allocation of responsibilities. Under the Banking Act 1987, responsibility for the authorisation and supervision of banks is a matter for the Bank of England within a clear statutory framework defined in the Act and is not a matter for the Government. So, for example, it is for the Bank of England to decide whether a bank's directors, controllers and managers are "fit and proper", to use the words of the Act, and whether its business is "conducted in a prudent manner" and with "integrity and skill". It was a deliberate choice when the 1987 Act was drafted to impose these responsibilities clearly and unequivocally on the Bank of England; and rightly so. It follows that supervisory judgments and decisions affecting the UK operations of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, in line with those affecting any other authorised institution, are for the Bank of England to take and the Government have no locus to intervene.
My second general point concerns confidentiality, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. As my noble friend the Paymaster General explained to the House on 19th March in reply to a Question from the noble Lord, there are strict confidentiality constraints on the disclosure by the Bank of England of supervisory information relating to individual institutions. The 1987 Act provides that with certain exceptions the Bank of England may not disclose or make public confidential information about an institution without that institution's consent; and there are provisions to the same effect in the European banking legislation.
Perhaps I might explain the importance of protecting the confidentiality of banking supervisory information. The Banking Act gives the Bank of England wide-ranging powers to demand highly sensitive commercial information from individual banks for supervisory purposes. It is only right and proper that that information is fully protected under the law. It is essential for the effective operation of the supervisory system, not least in order to encourage a climate in which people are willing to volunteer information and speak freely with the supervisors. Moreover, it allows any corrective action which may be needed to be taken in good order in the interests of safeguarding the interests of depositors, which noble Lords know is the primary purpose of the Act. It is difficult to think of circumstances where the interests of depositors were

419
served by potentially destabilising publicity regarding an authorised institution.
However, as I have indicated, it has always been acknowledged that there must be exceptions in the interests of effective supervision. Therefore, the Act provides for the Bank of England to exchange confidential information with other supervisory authorities where necessary. It also allows the Bank of England to discuss supervisory issues with the Treasury in certain well-defined circumstances. Specifically, the Act does not preclude the disclosure by the Bank of England of information to the Treasury if disclosure appears to the Bank to be desirable or expedient in the interests of depositors or in the public interest.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is aware of the provision in Section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946 which was not in any way repealed by the Banking Act 1987. I quote from Section 4(1):
"The Treasury may from time to time give such directions to the Bank as, after consultation with the Governor of the Bank, they think necessary in the public interest".
Lord Henley: My Lords, I repeat what I said as regards the 1987 Act. As the noble Lord will know, it is later than the Act to which he referred. Specifically the Act does not preclude the disclosure by the Bank of England of information to the Treasury if disclosure—and here I accept that possibly I misread the word "preclude" and said something different—does not preclude the disclosure by the Bank of England of information to the Treasury if disclosure appears to the Bank to be desirable or expedient in the interests of the depositors or in the public interest. I thank the noble Lord for that correction. I suspect that it was misreading on my part.
The important points to recognise about the disclosure of supervisory information to the Treasury are that the powers are highly restrictive and that discretion on whether to disclose such information rests with the Bank of England. This is of course consistent with the fact that it is the Bank and not the Government that is responsible for supervising individual banks, as I have already explained. But in these circumstances the Treasury is bound by the same confidentiality restrictions as the Bank. I cannot discuss such information publicly, nor can my colleagues who are Treasury Ministers; and nor would noble Lords wish me to do so once they consider the implications fully.
None of this inhibits the Treasury from taking the initiative in approaching the Bank of England if there are issues of policy arising from the affairs of individual banks, either singly or collectively. Naturally the Treasury maintains close contacts with the Bank of England on any issue which has been a matter of parliamentary or public concern.
Against this background I now turn to the specific Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about discussions between the Government and the Bank of England concerning the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. It is important to keep in
420
mind that the trial —and noble Lords have referred to this—of a number of BCCI's employees in the United States continues. One employee in London is awaiting trial in September for an alleged offence under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred. The matter is accordingly sub judice.
It should also be borne in mind that there are substantial differences between the United States law of vicarious corporate liability and the English law of corporate liability. In the United States, if an employee commits a crime in the course of his employment while exercising the authority, real or apparent, vested in him by a corporation and the criminal act was done, at least in part, to the benefit of the corporation, however small that benefit might be, the corporation is also guilty of the offence. It is not a defence for the corporation that the employee acted outside the policies of the corporation. The knowledge of individual employees acting within the scope of their employment may be imputed to the corporation. Under English law the employees would need to form part of the directing mind of the corporation in order for a charge to be brought against it.
I hope that in the light of this and the general points which I have made about the statutory position, the House will appreciate the constraints on what I have to say about the role of the Bank of England in the supervision of the BCCI.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Am I correct in understanding what he is saying about United States law to mean that the president of the bank in London and the chief executives in London could be held to be guilty of an offence under United States law if any employee in Florida were to commit an offence against United States law of which they were entirely ignorant?
Lord Henley: Certainly, my Lords, the law is different in America. As I understand it—I do not know how much criminal law the noble Lords knows—in England for a criminal offence to be committed there has to be the mens rea, the guilty act.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, the guilty mind. I thank the noble Lord; I do know that much.
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes, the guilty mind. Under American law, that mens rea can be imputed to the corporation merely by the act of the employee, although that employee is not what in England would be called part of the directing mind of the company. So in America there is a much stricter interpretation of what is the guilt implied or imputed, the guilty mind imputed to the company. I should not like to comment on the noble Lord's question about the English directors apropos America, but certainly there is a much tighter definition of corporate liability in America.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to

421
clarify the point raised by my noble friend Lord Callaghan. Is it not a fact that, despite the difference between American law and British law, which the noble Lord has perfectly adequately conveyed, in the American court BCCI was acquitted as a corporation of any offence?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is correct. My understanding is that in the case in Florida BCCI as a corporation pleaded guilty to some of the charges. Is that what the noble Lord is referring to?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it pleaded guilty to the charges that were brought against its employees as such, but not as a corporate entity, as I understand it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, no doubt I shall have to write to the noble Lord. My understanding is that it pleaded quilty as a corporation and as such accepted its criminal responsibility. The case would be different in England, but obviously I cannot comment on specific cases. There is a difference between English law and American law on the liability of corporations.
Perhaps I should explain something of the structure of the group. The holding company and one of the two main banking subsidiaries of the BCC group are incorporated in Luxembourg and the latter's banking activities are subject to the supervision of the authorities there. The other main banking subsidiary is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and is the responsibility of the local supervisory authority. The United Kingdom banking activies of the Luxembourg-incorporated bank are supervised by the Bank of England. Overall supervision of the group is carried out by a college of supervisors, with representatives from a number of countries in which the group has operations. Nevertheless—and here I come to the noble Lord's actual Question—I can say that Treasury officials have been in touch with the Bank of England to emphasise to it the degree of public concern about the case, not least that expressed by noble Lords, and to ask it to take full account of the concern in its continued supervision of BCCI. The Bank of England has confirmed that it is doing this and will continue to do so.
I should like to turn to the broader question of action against drug money laundering. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, welcomes the Government's action in this field. The Government treat the threat of drug money laundering as a matter of serious concern and have already introduced a number of significant measures to address it. Internationally, the United Kingdom is playing a leading role in taking measures against money laundering and we have been very active in developing international co-operation. The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 created a drug money laundering offence—assisting another to obtain the
422
benefit of drug trafficking—subject to strict penalties, strengthened the powers of enforcement agencies and provided for financial institutions to report suspicious transactions to Customs and police officers.
More recently we have brought forward measures which will further strengthen these powers by enabling the United Kingdom to ratify the United Nations Convention—the Vienna Convention to which the noble Lord referred—on Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of December 1988. We are also providing for Customs officers and the police to detain cash at the border where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that it is connected with drug trafficking.
Internationally, a high level of co-operation already exists between enforcement authorities in the United Kingdom and other countries. The United Kingdom participated fully in the Financial Action Task Force which was established with representatives from 15 major countries following the Paris Economic Summit last July to recommend improvements to measures against money laundering. The task force has completed its report, which was published, as the noble Lord said, on 19th April. The Government have endorsed its recommendations. Our priority now is to implement the recommendations and press other participating countries to do likewise. The United Kingdom has also concluded bilateral agreements or arrangements with 13 countries to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking. An Order in Council to implement those agreements has been laid before Parliament. Further such agreements are currently under negotiation.
However, action is not confined to the Government alone. The Bank of England has acted to remind banking institutions of their duties under statute and their responsibility to adopt policies to deter money laundering. It has indicated that it expects banks to adhere to the principles of the Basle statement on money laundering which has been endorsed by the governors of central banks in G10 countries. It has also made clear that failure to install or maintain adequate systems to cope with money laundering will be taken into account in its consideration of whether an institution continues to meet the criteria for authorisation.
Following on from this, the Bank has decided that it is appropriate to commission reports on this specific aspect of systems and control under Section 39(1)(b) of the Banking Act—that is, using reporting accountants—from authorised institutions in the 1990 round. Parallel action has been taken by the Building Societies Commission in respect of building societies which have identical repsonsibilities under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act.
Together with the government departments involved, the Bank of England played an active role in the work of the task force and has subsequently been instrumental in setting up and chairing a joint working group of banks, building societies and law

423
enforcement agencies to implement the task force's recommendations as they affect deposit-taking financial institutions.
In the light of these remarks, I hope that noble Lords will acknowledge the seriousness with which the Government and the Bank of England view the problem of money laundering and the firm action which we are taking to curb it.

Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia and Menley & James, Australia Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.