Sitting of 13 December 1990

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

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL ( By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 17 January.

    HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 December at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Refugees
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees are currently seeking permanent settlement in the United Kingdom; what are the broad and main reasons behind their application for settlement; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): On 30 September there were some 27,800 outstanding applications for asylum, most of which had been made in the previous 12 months. People claim asylum for a range of reasons, including a well-founded fear of persecution, economic factors, or as a means of circumventing normal immigration controls. In recent years fewer than a third of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom have been recognised as having a well-founded fear of persecution. In view of the rising number of asylum applications the Government are urgently reviewing the arrangements for dealing with asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Greenway: Although I have every sympathy with refugees and asylum seekers who are in genuine difficulties, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take note of my concern and that of my constituents at the very large number of asylum seekers coming into the constituency, necessarily taking over much-needed housing that could be used for the homeless and others and placing an enormous strain on the area's resources? Two people came to se me separately last week and said, "We have applied for asylum for ourselves. Could we also apply for asylum for 10 dependants?' That sort of thing can build up to huge numbers. What can be done?
    Mr. Baker: I am fully aware of the problem. About 10 years ago there were about 2,000 applications a year for refugee status. In the mid-1980s the figure rose to about 5,000 a year and stayed at that level for some time. In 1989 applications increased threefold to 16,000, and are currently running at over 25,000. As my hon. Friend says, after people have been received here they make applications for their dependants, the number of whom could be considerable. The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom. There is an increase in the number of refugees all over Europe, and all countries and Ministers with responsibilities such as mine are very concerned about it. We must ensure that something is done.
    Mr. Cartwright: Will the Home Secretary reflect on the real hardship that is caused to applicants for refugee status by extremely lengthy delays in processing their applications? People from Somalia, for example, have had to leave families behind in refugee camps in Ethiopia and for such people delays of more than a year are hard to bear. Can he give any hope that the process will be speeded up?
    Mr. Baker: Because of the rapid and sudden increase in the number of applications, it is currently taking an average of 17 months to vet and examine applications for refugee status. I discovered only last week that in several countries in Europe it takes much longer. We are doing what we can and the matter will be examined by the review that I have set up.

    Woolf Report
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates receiving the Woolf inquiry report.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): This is a matter for Lord Justice Woolf, but I understand that he hopes to report early in the new year.
    Mr. Sheerman: If the Woolf report appears after we finish Committee proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill it will be nothing short of a scandal, because everyone expects extremely sensible recommendations from Woolf which will affect, in particular, remand prisoners. Would not it be better to wait for Woolf rather than to carry through the dogma of the privatisation of the remand sector?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The report from Lord Justice Woolf will certainly be published before the end of proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will carefully consider the recommendations.
    Mr. Alexander: Although the immediate reaction to an incident such as that at Strangeways is to call for a full and wide-ranging report on prison conditions and inmate problems, would not it be equally helpful to have a much shorter factual report about what happened before the whole incident at Strangeways goes cold?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I assure my hon. Friend that the immediate circumstances surrounding the events of April in Strangeways have caused the prison service to look carefully at future plans for accommodation, the type of accommodation and the behaviour and management of prisons and regimes. The report will obviously make a

    1095
    number of recommendations, but the prison service has taken note of what needs to be done to improve prison regimes and security without waiting for that report.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Woolf inquiry deal with the problem of remand prisoners being held in police cells in Greater Manchester since the Strangeways incident? In particular, will the numbers being held in police cells now be dramatically reduced and who will pay the cost of their detention there? There is much concern in Greater Manchester that poll tax payers will have to foot the bill for all the overtime that is being worked by police officers looking after remand prisoners in police cells.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that K wing at Strangeways is now open and prisoners are being returned from police cells in Greater Manchester. It is hoped that up to 150 prisoners will be sent to Strangeways from police cells by Christmas. The Home Office has already paid £8 million to the police for their services and any further expenditure incurred by the police for looking after prisoners will be repaid.

    Crime
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new plans he has to reduce the incidence of crime in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): We shall continue to pursue our policies to combat crime and protect the public. In England and Wales, additional people and money will be available to the police next year. The provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill will enhance the courts' powers to deal effectively with offenders. We have a growing and substantial programme of crime prevention measures, but effective action against crime needs the wholehearted support of everyone, as much in England and Wales as in Scotland.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister recognise that there is concern about the extent to which juvenile crime is increasing? Will he acknowledge that nearly half all recordable offences are committed by persons under the age of 21 and that the peak offending ages are between 15 and 18? Has the Home Office considered looking at the non-judicial tribunal system and the children's hearing system in Scotland, which is child centred and family based and provides a way of breaking into the cycle of recidivism which seems to bedevil criminal statistics?
    Mr. Patten: For these purposes, Scotland is a different country with a different criminal code. We are always prepared to listen to what goes on in different countries and learn from it. I have looked at the possibility of introducing children's panels here, but there are successful alternatives, such as the use of cautioning. About 90 per cent. of those aged between 10 and 13 coming into the hands of the police are cautioned rather than proceeding to a court hearing of any sort. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that about half the crimes in England and Wales are committed by those under 21 and that the peak age for offending is in the mid-teens, but over the past 10 years juvenile crime in Britain has been decreasing and that continues to be the case. I hope that that means that we are
    1096
    laying the foundation for lower overall crime figures in the 1990s, as most people who offend as juveniles offend again as adults.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of countering international crime, particularly drug trafficking, is greater sharing of information and co-operation among member countries in the EC? What news is there from the Trevi group of Ministers in relation to greater collaboration among our police forces?
    Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was in Rome at the Trevi meeting last Thursday and Friday. I do not want to slip too much into Foreign Office communiqué language, but there were useful and fruitful discussions. Let me raise the veil to some extent by saying that one possibility is that we may have a Europeanwide drug intelligence unit to share information among all western European countries and, I hope increasingly, the countries of central Europe and the USSR.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister introduce legislation to establish a register of authorised manufac-turers and holders of skeleton keys? Is he aware that one of my constituents received correspondence saying that keys that suit different types of lock and which will open the majority of British and foreign cars are available somewhere within the United Kingdom? Is not it clear that many who buy those keys will commit criminal offences? Can a national register now be set up as a matter of urgency, or is this just part of the enterprise economy?
    Mr. Patten: That was a silly ending to what was a rather good and important question.
    Mr. Canavan: It is a key question.
    Mr. Patten: If that counts as a joke in Scotland, I am glad that I penetrate only as far as the lowlands on my travels there.
    The sort of equipment advertised in the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not make it any easier to break into cars than any other material, such as pieces of metal, bent coathangers, and so on. Anyone who goes equipped for crime in possession of such an item—whether it purports to be a skeleton key or anything else that can be used for breaking and entering—can be charged and convicted.

    BBC Licence Fee
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in the study being undertaken by independent consultants appointed by his Department into the ways in which the BBC spends its licence fee income.
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had recently with the director general of the BBC concerning the licence fee.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We had discussions with the chairman and director general of the BBC before we asked Price Waterhouse to advise how licence fee

    1097
    increases could be held below the retail prices index. Its report is now being completed and my right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decision in January.
    Mr. Field: Are not vehicle excise duty and the television licence fee the last remaining bureaucratic and inefficient forms of taxation? Is not it time for the BBC to be set free and allowed to generate its own revenue—perhaps matched by the Government pound for pound, as they have done with their very successful programme of supporting the arts? Would not that create independence and improve efficiency?
    Mr. Lloyd: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the licence fee system is inefficient. It raises 97 per cent. of the BBC's revenue and will remain its major source of income at least until the corporation's charter is renewed in 1996. The BBC is experimenting with subscription television, but its first essay was not successful owing to the failure of the decoding equipment. Nevertheless, the BBC is pursuing a dozen or more ideas that it hopes to introduce at the end of 1991. If my hon. Friend has any specific ideas that could be effective in raising additional revenue for the BBC, I hope that he will inject them into the discussions on the renewal of the corporation's charter. As they will begin in a couple of years' time, that leaves my hon. Friend with plenty of time to give thought to the matter.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister accept that the licence fee represents excellent value for money and, so far as Labour is concerned, is far superior to the alternative of subscription fees, which would undoubtedly be much more expensive for the average viewer? Our only qualification is that pensioners, particularly those on very low incomes, should be exempt from paying the licence fee. That would make it far less of a controversial issue. Any alternative system not offering exemption, such as subscriptions, would certainly be more expensive for pensioners.
    Mr. Lloyd: One cannot reach a definite conclusion on different forms of financing the BBC until they have all been thoroughly examined. I agree that the BBC licence fee offers extremely good value for money. As the hon. Gentleman knows, concessionary licences are available to pensioners in local authority warden-controlled homes. The hon. Gentleman should talk to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen who specifically said that there should not be concessionary licences for all pensioners, because many of them have greater incomes than the non-pensioners who would have to pay extra for their licences to cover the cost of the pensioners' concession.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people deeply resent paying such a large licence fee and that they will resent even more any increase, particularly as there is an easy way of increasing the BBC's revenue—by allowing advertising on Radios 1 and 2?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is not simply a matter of allowing advertising, because the BBC's charter forbids that. We cannot change the existing charter, or consider renewing it in its present form, until it has expired.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that, contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), a large body of people values the oasis of broadcasting that is free from advertising and commercial pressures? Will he give us an assurance that the
    1098
    Government have no intention of introducing advertising into the BBC and thereby reducing it to the same level as every other "income sourced" broadcasting concern?
    Mr. Lloyd: As I said, the Government have no such intention. All the possible ways of raising revenue for the BBC, including maintaining the licence fee, will undoubtedly be considered when the charter comes up for renewal. I agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman's implication that many people consider the licence fee good value for money—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Moreover, research studies have shown that at least a good proportion of people say that they would be prepared to pay more.

    Soccer Violence and Hooliganism
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to introduce new legislation to combat soccer violence and hooliganism.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in respect of his recently announced legislative proposals to create new offences designed to help control hooliganism at football gounds.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: We propose to create offences along the lines recommended by Lord Justice Taylor in his final report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster as soon as parliamentary time allows.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend recall the violence and destruction that took place in my constituency over the last May bank holiday weekend on the occasion of the Leeds United-Bournemouth football match, despite repeated requests from the police for the match to be rescheduled? Will he include in the proposed legislation a police power to veto the holding of such potentially dangerous matches, which was called for at the time by the chief constable of Dorset?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly remember that match. It so concerned the former Home Secretary, my noble and learned Friend Lord Waddington—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—of very blessed memory—that he called in representatives of the Football Association and the league. Those representatives agreed that they would never hold a match when a chief officer of police had asked them not to do so on a particular date or in a particular place. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although his proposals may be acceptable to the Government, the Taylor report was complete nonsense from start to finish and precipitated the demise of small clubs? Would not it be better if these hooligans were taken away and flogged, so that they would not go on inflicting damage on people's property week in, week out?
    Mr. Lloyd: Like many other people, my hon. Friend is deeply concerned about hooliganism at football matches and has done much more than most to deal with. However, I do not think that even he would consider, on reflection, that the Taylor report was complete and utter nonsense and I doubt whether he would want the Government to refrain from adding the offences mentioned in Taylor's recommendations to the list of those for which hooligans can be prosecuted.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Minister aware that the West Yorkshire police force will find it very difficult to control soccer violence, because it is unable to maintain itself at the strength that the Home Office recognises is necessary for an efficient service? Owing to the poll tax rules, by March 1992 there will be 500 fewer police officers on the beat in West Yorkshire.
    Mr. Lloyd: If the county council is unable to organise its finances to provide the police coverage that it should provide, that is a matter for the council itself. The grant from central Government for police expenditure is 51 per cent. and that local authority receives the same assistance as any other. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the number of arrests has fallen somewhat over the past year or so, although attendances have risen.
    Mr. Randall: Will the Minister admit that the Government have failed the sport of football through a series of errors made in pursuing, through the Football Spectators Act 1989, the mad idea of turnstile cards for fans and in not waiting for the Taylor report to be published before proceeding with legislation, as was positively proposed by the Labour party? Does the Minister accept that the consequences of the errors and U-turns have caused a serious delay in getting much-needed legislation aimed at combating hooliganism on the statute book?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Government would have been worthy of blame had they not created the legislative framework to make possible decisions such as the membership scheme. Only part of the Act is rendered unnecessary by later agreements. Other aspects of the Act are on the statute book and are of great use. If the hon. Gentleman will reflect on it, I hope that he will agree.
    Mr. Butcher: I hope that my hon. Friend will look further into the causes of hooliganism and the best way of dealing with it. Will he instruct his officials to call upon Mr. George Curtis of Coventry City football club who has a great deal of expertise in this matter? Is my hon. Friend aware that Coventry's policy of treating fans with respect and consideration inside the ground while being strict, fair and immediate in law enforcement outside the ground has worked well?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is true that the last people thought of by some clubs are their fans. If they were given much greater attention, as is increasingly the case with most clubs, it is likely that the problems would decrease.
    Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Minister's wholly unsatisfactory reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Chief Constable John Newing
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will obtain for the library of his Department a copy of the speech delivered at the London conference on crime and policing on 28 November by Chief Constable John Newing of Derbyshire.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Copies of Mr. Newing's speech have been obtained and placed in the Home Office library. The Government are continuing to support police efforts
    1100
    to ensure public confidence through the delivery of an efficient and effective service. I fully endorse the work of all police officers to improve the quality of service and increase the confidence of the public in the police.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary share the concern expressed by Chief Constable Newing that there is a crisis of confidence and morale in the police force at all ranks and, in particular, that there is discrimination against women and black serving officers? Does he accept the recommendation—or will he consider it—that after 30 years the time is ripe for a new royal commission on the police?
    Mr. Baker: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and I do not accept the argument that there is a fundamental lack of confidence in the police. I appreciate the fact that some recent events—I do not wish to underestimate them if they involve a miscarriage of justice —have attracted a great deal of attention, but it is important to remember that a small number of officers was involved in those cases and it would be wrong to condemn the entire police service on account of that. Over 125,000 uniformed police officers work day in and day out on the streets of our cities dealing with law and order and they deserve our support.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Derbyshire policemen are as able and dedicated as any police officers in the country and that the low performance of the Derbyshire police is an appalling reflection on the political control exercised upon them by Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council? It is a warning of what would happen were Labour to win the next election.
    Mr. Baker: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The chief inspector of police has issued a report on the state of Derbyshire constabulary. It is one of the most worrying reports that has ever been issued. It is not a reflection on the chief constable or the police officers in Derbyshire, but a condemnation of Derbyshire county council and Derbyshire police authority which, for the past eight years, have starved the police of resources. The last major capital building programme of a police station in Derbyshire ended in 1981. There has been no increase in police numbers in Derbyshire since 1987, which shows Labour's priorities when it is in office.
    Mr. Janner: Does not the speech of the chief constable of Derbyshire show that police resources and morale throughout the east midlands are crumbling? Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of a series of serious murder inquiries and other stresses on resources, Leicestershire police has a deficit of £1·5 million and last week announced cuts in staff, in policing and in the protection that citizens are entitled to expect? Will he be kind enough to look into the problem of the Leicestershire police deficit and provide us with some help?
    Mr. Baker: Since we have been in office, there has been an increase in police strength of more than 26,000 men and women and next year there will be a further 700. Derbyshire was offered an increase in police officers last year but it turned it down, preferring to spend the money on other priorities.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by failing to provide the necessary support, Derbyshire county council is failing in its duty under section 4 of the

    1101
    Police Act 1964? What action will he take as Home Secretary to make sure that it abides by that Act to ensure adequate policing for the people of Derbyshire?
    Mr. Baker: I am, of course, concerned about that point and have asked the chief inspector to take particular interest in what is happening in Derbyshire. His report showed, for example, that its fingerprint bureau was on the brink of collapse, that its casualty bureau could not withstand any realistic pressure and that many of its police stations were in a disgraceful condition. I ask the Labour party to appreciate that that is what happens when a Labour authority has been in power and places policing right at the bottom of its list for eight years.
    Mr. Hattersley: The speech to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred in his question did not concern, as the Home Secretary chose to interpret it, a collapse of confidence in the police, but the collapse in police morale throughout the United Kingdom. When the Home Secretary begins to talk to policemen, he will discover that that collapse in morale is widespread and desperately dangerous. Knowing as he must, or as he soon will, that one of the main causes of the collapse in police morale is the Government's refusal to implement Edmund-Davies as far as it applied to the police housing allowance, is he prepared to look at that again?
    Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the collapse of police morale, but he should note that the chief constable said that the collapse of morale in Derbyshire was because of the fact that Derbyshire county council has put the police at the bottom of its list for eight years. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of his commitment to law and order and the way in which the Labour party is concerned about law and order, I shall say to him, "Derbyshire", which shows what Labour is like in office.

    Weapons
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee to discuss the European Commission's draft directive on the control of acquisition and possession of weapons.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: My noble Friend Lord Kimball has written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with the views of the committee on the draft directive. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that under the draft directive the rights of British shooters, as covered by British domestic law, will not be inhibited in any way? Will he clarify the position on the possession and use of automatic shotguns by British domestic residents and by visitors from overseas and the European Community?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend asked a lot of questions, but I think that I can respond by answering the first part. The directive will leave domestic law as the ruling law on firearms in this country as in other European countries. The weapons that are now allowed will continue to be allowed. The directive will deal only with the rules governing the legitimate movement of weapons between countries, with the law of the recipient country determining what is allowed.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister agree that it is not necessary to see police walking around Heathrow with large machine guns? It frightens passengers and tourists and it frightens the hell out of me.
    Mr. Lloyd: The directive has nothing to do with that point. I think that most people would require that the police use the means at their disposal to ensure maximum security. That factor would determine the reactions of most people.

    Citizenship
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to process applications for British citizenship.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The average time now being taken to complete applications is 23 months for registrations and 34 months for naturalisations.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which is somewhat disappointing. Several constituents in my area, particularly those from Poland, were recently told that there would be an 18-month delay in processing their applications. What more can be done and what is being done to speed up the processing of the backlog of applications?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation is unsatisfactory. The reason is the enormous influx of applications at the deadline at the end of 1987, to meet the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981. The huge influx reached its peak in December 1987 and we have reached the final applications. It is possible that the waiting time will increase a little over the next few weeks. I believe that it will then decrease rapidly because of the steps that we have taken to provide extra staff in the next financial year, to streamline procedures and so on.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I put it to the Minister that this is a disgracefully long time in which to consider applications. It is made that much worse because the applicants have submitted their cheques, which the Government have banked and on which, no doubt, they are getting a good interest rate, given the present level. Will the Minister be prepared to look at a delayed payment system, whereby people can at least hang on to the money and pay it when the Government are ready to process their applications?
    Mr. Lloyd: The section is running at a loss this year. If we were to make an adjustment according to costs, the charge would have to go up. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it is a long delay. As he knows, if a Member writes to us about a constituent who is being grossly inconvenienced by the delay, we shall give that application a measure of priority.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that his first reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) was most unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that many of us have found that the lengthy delays in processing such applications cause a great deal of misery and heartache? They are totally unnecessary in a well-organised department. Will he do something about them?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept the implications of my right hon. Friend's remarks. He knows that the huge influx was

    1103
    caused by people all putting in their applications at the same time, when many had had opportunities to do so since 1973. We have to choose the way in which we direct priorities in the Home Office. If my right hon. Friend looked objectively at the situation, I do not think that he would agree that it would be right, for instance, to take away resources from processing applications by refugees, when their future depends upon it, in order to give passports to people who are already properly settled here.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the operation of the magistrates courts dealing with poll tax cases; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: We are keeping the operation of the statutory arrangements under review and we have asked all justices' clerks in England and Wales to provide information about the community charge enforcement work load. Most cases are going very well.
    Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister realise that hundreds of thousands of people have been dealt with far worse than criminals in the magistrates courts in recent weeks? In Warrington and in Lymington, people have been dragooned through, eight or 10 at a time. In Hitchin and in Stevenage, the courts have been closed to the public. In a number of magistrates courts from Coventry down to Bournemouth, people have been denied the right of representation. In Grantham last Friday, a man was put into prison, but, unlike a criminal who gets 50 per cent. remission of his sentence and although his only crime was that he was poor and could not afford to pay the poll tax, he will get no remission on his sentence. Will the Minister review the procedures and stop treating poor debtors as if they were criminals?
    Mr. Patten: Certainly not. People should pay the bills due to their local authorities. If they do not, they should face the consequences.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House at what level the number of summonses for community charge defaulters is running at the moment in comparison with the number of defaulters whom one would have expected to be summonsed at this time of year under the old rating system?
    Mr. Patten: It is not much different. The only difference is that the courts are operating a new procedure and a new set of processes. They have not been aided by hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and some of his hon. Friends, who have tried to incite people to disrupt proceedings in the magistrates courts to the maximum of their ability.

    Burglaries
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries of homes and commercial premises have taken place in the past 12 months.
    Mr. John Patten: In the 12 months to June 1990, 477,000 residential burglaries and 427,000 commercial burglaries were recorded by the police in England and Wales.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister agree that those figures reveal that the number of burglaries and break-ins has now reached epidemic proportions? Does he further agree that in the urban areas where it is almost impossible to get insurance because of repeated instances of break-ins, it would be worth while for the Department to speak to the insurance companies to try to persuade them to take a rather more helpful view about providing insurance? Does he agree that there is a need to provide burglar alarms for those who cannot afford to have their homes properly fitted with alarms in areas where there is a high incidence of burglary?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that the British insurance industry could do far more, by the use of premium payments and other methods, to encourage people to protect their own property, which would ensure that people in high crime areas would not have difficulties in obtaining insurance. However, all of us can learn a bit from Merseyside. While burglaries have been going up in England and Wales, as I have already said, in Merseyside, thanks to the activities of 5,000 neighbourhood watch or home watch schemes and to the Merseyside police, the number of burglaries dropped by about 13 per cent. in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

    Trevi Group
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the meetings of Ministers and of the respective working groups scheduled for the Trevi group for the remainder of 1990.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I attended the Trevi meeting in Rome on 7 December. The cycle of working group meetings will begin again in January under the Luxembourg presidency.
    Mr. Archer: That makes it easier. Will the right hon. Gentleman bring us up to date on the talks arising from the proposal for a common information system? Who will qualify for the doubtful privilege of inclusion? What personal information will be recorded and who will have access to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to keep the House informed?
    Mr. Baker: Ministers agreed in Rome to commission a detailed feasibility study on a Community-wide com-puterised information service to help combat serious crime. We shall play an active part in that with a view to ensuring that any system works effectively and contains suitable safeguards on personal information. I quite understand the significance and importance of that, and I shall keep the House fully informed.

    Sentencing Council
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce a sentencing council; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: The Government's plans are set out in the Criminal Justice Bill, which will provide a coherent framework for consistency in sentencing. Those proposals build on the valuable work of the Court of Appeal and, most importantly, respect the independence of the judiciary.
    Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the plans announced by the Labour party for a sentencing council and for some form of court inspectorate cut across the constitutional pillars of our democracy, in which the Executive and judiciary carry out separate functions, and the judiciary protects the man in the street?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend must be referring to the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in which he regurgitated the ideas of the 1960s and 1970s, suggesting that courts are not there for punishment and introducing the most violent attack on the independence of the judiciary. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition are producing the ideas of terminally tired Labourism. They are a pair of politically beached whales.
    Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole House and the country have been shocked by the suicide of 15-year-old Philip Knight, who was locked up for 23 hours a day in an adult prison, Swansea, where his suicidal tendencies and misery were clearly not identified? Does he further agree that we need a review of remand policies to make it clear that young people should not be put in adult prisons?
    Mr. Patten: I thought that I was leaving on rather a good exit line, but I am pleased to have been brought back by the hon. Lady to answer that extremely important question. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department issued new guidance to the prison service. Either before Christmas or shortly after, I hope to be able to make further announcements about the better provision of remand for boys aged 15 and 16.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. After my duties in the House, I shall be leaving for the European Council in Rome.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Prime Minister find time to give another impetus to his ideal of a classless society, in which public power is not abused, by responding to the growing movement for constitutional reform? In the spirit of the times, will he institute cross-party talks on a Bill of Rights, decentralised government and a fair voting system?
    The Prime Minister: As I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman and as he will know from what I have said in recent weeks, my vision of a classless society deals with increased opportunity and choice. I have no immediate proposals for constitutional change.
    Mr. Luce: As protectionism would do much to undermine the economies of the world and to increase unemployment, will my right hon. Friend take a positive lead this weekend in the European summit to persuade the
    1106
    Community to adopt a less protectionist stance with regard to agriculture, with a view to unblocking the GATT negotiations?
    The Prime Minister: I shall be arguing for a positive statement from the European Council, which will make absolutely clear the Community's determination to make a success of the GATT negotiations. They are extremely important and the cost if they fail, to us and to many other countries, is very great.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that the large rises in unemployment are a direct and deliberate result of his policies?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone regrets the rise in unemployment, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have been warning for some months that if wage rises stay high, they will have a necessary effect on jobs.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does not it strike the right hon. Gentleman as somewhat dishonest that, whenever unemployment goes down, it is evidence of the Government's success; but whenever it goes up, it is evidence of somebody else's failure? Why is not the right hon. Gentleman man enough to own up properly to the reasons for the rise in unemployment and to accept the blame for his own policies? As he knows the economic and human cost of unemployment, what is he going to do now to stop unemployment rising still further?
    The Prime Minister: Upon the right hon. Gentleman's own premise, he knows precisely the success that the Government have had. If he looks across the whole Community, he will see that our rate of unemployment is among the lowest in the Community, at 6·2 per cent. Long-term unemployment is still falling and the extent to which the economy has been revived can also be seen in the fact that 50 per cent. of those who have just lost their jobs will be back in work within three months.
    Mr. Kinnock: This is the second time in a decade that the Government have brought severe recession and rising unemployment to this country. Will the Prime Minister now answer the question? What does he intend to do to stop unemployment rising further?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have a higher percentage of our work force in work than almost any other country in Europe. If the right hon. Gentleman is so worried about unemployment, why does he support a national minimum wage, which would cost three quarters of a million jobs?
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that when he leaves for Rome later this afternoon, he will carry with him the exceptional good wishes of the British people, who have been greatly impressed by his decisions and his bearing since he became Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall certainly endeavour to ensure at the European Council not only that we protect British interests but that we consider the interests of Europe as a whole.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that Christmas for many of my constituents and many hundreds of thousands of people throughout Britain will be marred by having to make appearances in court because of their inability to pay their poll tax? When will the Government recognise that making promises—or alleged promises—to do something in two years' time is not acceptable? Will he do something to remove the requirement on the lowest-paid people to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax and increase the level of income at which some rebate can be paid to those who cannot afford to pay their poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, a large number of people are eligible for substantial rebates. The hon. Gentleman would make a good start by persuading some of his hon. Friends to pay their community charge.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: When my right hon. Friend goes to Rome this weekend, will he bear it in mind that, in the final analysis, the British Government must go whichever way gives British agriculture and industry the best prospects of creating wealth for the people who live in these islands? Will he tell our European partners that wealth creation through free trade remains our top priority?
    The Prime Minister: I shall be happy to carry that message to all members of the Community. I very much agree with my hon. Friend. A great deal of the growing prosperity in recent years has clearly been the result of the steady removal of barriers to trade. We wish that to continue.
    Mr. Boateng: Last weekend in London the severe weather shelters were kept closed because it was not "cold enough". In the Prime Minister's classless, caring, opportunity society, how cold does it have to be and for how long before the homeless are given the opportunity of shelter and warmth?
    The Prime Minister: In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he may be interested to know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will announce within the next few days a substantial number of new bed spaces in hostels and long-term housing in central London. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like this, but it is directly related to the point that the hon. Gentleman made. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is talking to front-line agencies and together they are developing new and more effective ways of getting rough sleepers off the streets. I should have thought that Opposition Members would wish to hear that and support it.
    Mr. Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Moate: With regard to the Gulf crisis, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm today that any partial withdrawal by
    1108
    Iraq from Kuwait would be wholly unacceptable and that Saddam Hussein must be required to comply in full with all the requirements of the United Nations resolutions?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm absolutely what my hon. Friend says. Partial withdrawal simply will not do. Iraq needs to comply fully with all the provisions of the UN Security Council resolutions. That means total and unconditional withdrawal. The United Nations has made it clear that the use of military force will be justifiable if Saddam Hussein has not met the requirements of the resolutions in full by 15 January.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is absolutely diabolical in this day and age for a 20-year-old, unemployed person to be sent to prison for failing to pay the poll tax? Would he care to reflect on the fact that if everybody touched the forelock and obediently stumped up the poll tax, herself would still be in 10 Downing street, Tarzan would still be languishing on the Back Benches and the poll tax would be under no immediate threat whatever?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are examining the whole question of the community charge and in due course we shall make a statement.
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on two significant, but contrasting parliamentary achievements that have recently occurred: first, that he is now the youngest serving Prime Minister of this country this century, and, secondly that his opposite number is the longest-serving Opposition leader in parliamentary history?
    The Prime Minister: I shall no doubt grow older in the job and no doubt so will the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister agree that when he answered my question on Polaris last Thursday, he was unhappy with his answer? Will he confirm that, having had more time to look into the problems associated with Polaris, he must be even more unhappy? Is he confident that Polaris will go on being an effective deterrent for the next four years and can be kept safely at sea? Would not this be a good time to scrap it and put forward proposals for getting rid of our nuclear seaborne deterrent as part of the negotiations in the spring?
    The Prime Minister: The nuclear deterrent has served this country extremely well in the past few years and I have no plans to change that policy.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Was the Prime Minister encouraged, as I was, by the reports of the Dail Eireann debate yesterday, which showed growing support for amendments to articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's

    1109
    constitution? As those two articles claim jurisdiction over a part of the United Kingdom's territory, will the Prime Minister encourage that process?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly propose to study carefully what was said yesterday.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: On this our first opportunity, may I on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Prime Minister? Recently, he will have recognised that it is necessary to create confidence and trust in Northern Ireland to have political progress. Is he aware of the unease and alarm created by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland three weeks ago when he said that the British Government had
    "no … strategic, or economic interest in Northern Ireland"?
    Will he, therefore, prove that he is the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, not just the Conservative party, and support and strengthen the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the troops are in Northern Ireland both because that is the wish of the people of Northern Ireland and to ensure the security of the people of Northern Ireland. That is and remains the position. It is generally accepted throughout Northern Ireland the my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is one of the best friends that the Province has had for a long time.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Is the Prime Minister aware that when he spoke recently about a classless society, he struck a chord with many of my constituents in Basildon? Does he recall that when he visited our town some time ago, he recognised that it had a fine community spirit, despite local socialists who try to cause class divisions by their support of Militant Tendency and the like? Does he agree that it is only the policies of the Conservative party that allow people to get ahead and that Opposition policies cause division and hold people back?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It always has been that way. The Conservative party is determined to increase choice and opportunity and, unlike Opposition Members, we shall not put barriers in the way of such opportunity and choice.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Would the Prime Minister like to reflect upon the fact that the appalling unemployment figures announced today will be further augmented next month, not least by my constituents who are employed by a company called Euroshape, who had redundancy offered to them this week without any hope of pay? That company once employed 300 people, but what hope can the right hon. Gentleman offer them following his announcement on 27 October last year, when he said that the harsh truth was that if the policy was not hurting, it was not working? Will that message apply this year and next Christmas as well?
    The Prime Minister: As the policy self-evidently is working, we shall first see a considerable reduction in inflation in the next few months. Following that reduction we shall return to a period of growth. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the past 10 years, our growth record has exceeded that of any other European country.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 DECEMBER—Proceedings in Committee of the Criminal Justice Bill on new clauses relating to capital punishment.
TUESDAY 18 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill.
Motion to take note of EC document relating to the establishment of a programme for research and technological development in human capital and mobility. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 19 DECEMBER—Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
THURSDAY 20 DECEMBER—Debates on the motion for the Adjournment.
It may be for the convenience of the house if I indicate that the business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Severn Bridges Bill.
Motion on the International Development Association (Ninth Replenishment) Order.
Motion on the Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 15 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill.
WEDNESDAY 16 JANUARY—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on an opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.
THURSDAY 17 JANUARY—There will be a debate on a motion to take note of the Ibbs report on the House of Commons services.
Proceedings on the Census Confidentiality Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 18 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
[Tuesday 18 December
Relevant European Community Document
7053/90 Training and Mobility of Researchers
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
HC 11-xxx (1989–90), para 3]
Mr. Grocott: May I ask the Leader of the House when we shall debate the Cullen report into the Piper Alpha disaster? We know that there was negligence and that much needs to be done. Surely we owe it to the families of those who were killed to debate that report as a matter of urgency.
Yesterday, during Environment Question Time—many hon. Members now present were also present then—the discussion on the poll tax was stifled because of the disgraceful way in which the Secretary of State for the
1112
Environment linked no fewer than eight questions. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers do not stand at the Dispatch Box next week or any other week and link eight questions in that way? Will he tell the new Secretary of State for the Environment that we are used to him abusing the Mace, but will he stop abusing the Order Paper?
On the Government's plans on opting-out hospitals, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is disgraceful that there is no established procedure for debating the opting-out proposals, which are causing concern to people throughout the country? Is he aware that the statement last week was totally inadequate and that many Opposition Members who had been leading campaigns against opting out were unable to take part in that short question and answer session? When can we have a full-scale debate before any more damage is done to the health service?
Mr. MacGregor: The answer to the first part of that question is that I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate, but suggest that it is a matter best left for discussion through the usual channels.
The answer to the second part, about the linking of questions, is that the questions were all on the same subject. The matter has been raised through the usual channels and I am considering the points that Opposition Members have made and which the hon. Gentleman made today.
The answer to the third part is that trust hospitals were widely debated many times when the Bill, now the Act, was proceeding through the House, so the issues and principles have been thoroughly aired. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Secretary of State for Health made a full statement on the point recently, so I see no need to provide for a debate in Government time. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends feel so strongly about the matter, opportunities are open to them to have debates on the issue in the House, and I have made one available in the first week back.
Mr. Quentin Davies: In the debate last week on the future of the European Community, the Foreign Secretary referred several times to the debate that we would be having on the economic aspects of that matter—specifically, on the intergovernmental conference on European monetary union. May we have an assurance that we shall have that debate fairly soon, so that at least there will be a theoretical possibility that the remarks made in the House during the debate could be taken into account by Ministers before irrevocable decisions are taken?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I agree that it is an important matter and that there is need for a debate on it. I hope to arrange one soon after the House returns.
Mr. James Wallace: As a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Leader of the House knows how important the annual hill farming review is to the farming industry. May we be assured that a statement on the matter will be made before the Christmas recess? Will he also provide a weekly progress report on the setting up of the Scottish Select Committee?
Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, I doubt whether I would want to give a weekly progress report, because I

1113
have already said that I think it unlikely that progress will be made—[Interruption.] —so I would be wasting the time of the House if I gave a weekly progress report.
To answer the first point, I cannot guarantee a statement being made next week, but there will be opportunities for the matter to be raised, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, on the motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Mr. David Porter: In the light of the bad weather last night, leading to floods and flood warnings on the Suffolk-Norfolk coast, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement to be made so that we may see whether the Government are making progress towards setting up one authority with overall responsibility for coastal protection around the whole of Britain?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will know, I am aware of, and very concerned about, the incidents to which he referred. We have a heavy programme next week, so it is unlikely that there will be a statement on the subject, but he could raise the issue on the motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the tragedy that occurred yesterday, with the loss of six crewmen on the fishing vessel Premier. He and hon. Members have expressed their sympathy to my constituents, and that is much appreciated. On a more practical note, will the Department of Transport, in the coming days, advise the House or myself as the constituency hon. Member, or the local fishing office, of measures to try to raise the vessel, which I understand is lying in about 130m of water? That will be an expensive operation, but it is possible that the bodies of some of my missing constituents are contained in it, and obviously we should like to see every effort made to raise the vessel.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the whole House will want to express sympathy to the relatives and for their concerns about the incident—the hon. Lady is right about that. I shall draw her point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will want to make some comments about the tragic incident in his opening speech in the debate later this afternoon.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend see whether it might be possible to hold a debate in the new year, perhaps during the first week back, on the BBC and public service broadcasting? He may be aware that, during questions to the Home Office today, there was little opportunity for Conservative Members to say how much they admire the BBC, which has been brought to a pinnacle of achievement by Sir Ian Trethowan and Lord Swann, and we hope that it will continue its fine work.
Mr. MacGregor: It will not be possible in the first week back, for which I have already announced the business. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate, but I will bear his points in mind.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 49, which has attracted the support of 164 Members of all parties.
[That this House welcomes the book To Encourage Others by David A. Yallop, calling for an independent public
1114
inquiry into the hanging of Derek Bentley in 1952; requests the Home Secretary to set up the inquiry as a matter of urgency; hopes that such a request will lead to a posthumous pardon; and feels that this will end a grave miscarriage of justice which leaves a permanent blot on the British judicial system—the hanging of an innocent man.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement as soon as possible so that this matter can be debated? And will he ask the Home Secretary whether he has considered the video sent him by Thames Television dealing with the same matter?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering representations made to him as a result of the book on the subject. I am not sure about the video, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on law and order? Does he agree that selective obedience to the law is a recipe for anarchy? Is he aware that yesterday the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) appeared in court for non-payment of the community charge? Is it not wrong—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not deal with matters of detail like that. The question should be about the business for next week.
Mr. MacGregor: There have been many opportunities —they have all been taken—to condemn Members of this House who have refused to pay their community charge, the more so because that affects many people who are less well off than they are.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that his negative answers to requests for a statement on haemophiliacs now look less than impressive, to put it kindly? As the nuclear test veterans have the same kind of powerful case but have been brushed aside by the Government and are dying, and as they should not be forced to go to the courts, will he arrange for a statement on those veterans next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I can arrange for a statement on the point, but I shall have a look at it and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
I did not give negative answers. I made it very clear that we were promising to keep the figure under review, and we reached a quick decision on that review. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the decision that has since been made on the haemophiliacs.
Mr. John Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for another and early debate on GATT? Is he aware that the top 20 British manufacturing companies still make more than half their foreign-earned profits from the north American market? This is a vital issue for employment in this country. Does he agree that this country and this House are in a unique position to mediate, through our Ministers, between the interests of north America and Europe? If the British tradition of free trade does not prevail across the Atlantic, we shall all be impoverished.
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree about the importance of the GATT negotiations, not least in the context to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. There is no disagreement about that in the Government. My right hon. Friends have often made that clear and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the Government have played an important part in trying to keep the negotiations moving and to reach a successful conclusion to them. We shall continue to try. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that he will make further efforts in that regard this weekend.
We shall have to decide an appropriate moment, whether in the form of a debate or a statement, at which the House can further deal with these issues and I shall bear that in mind.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, as the traditional defender of Back Benchers' rights, share the concern of many hon. Members that five Departments of government no longer have Select Committees scrutinising their work. Could the Lord President of the Council tell us whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will next week tell the House why he still opposes a Select Committee on Northern Irish Affairs, whether he now espouses a policy of condominium government for Northern Ireland or whether some other form of con-ship is being manufactured for the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. MacGregor: Again, I do not think that a statement on that matter would be appropriate next week. However, I shall ask my right hon. Friend to communicate again with the hon. Gentleman about the issue.
Mr. Chris Butler: My right hon. Friend may be aware that on 1 January 1991 the United Nations Decade Against Drug Abuse begins. Would not it be appropriate when we reassemble to debate these important matters?
Mr. MacGregor: They have been raised many times. My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw our attention to the fact that the United Nations Decade Against Drug Abuse begins on 1 January. We warmly welcome all international efforts to draw attention to the danger of drug misuse. As my hon. Friend knows, Britain has been at the forefront of efforts to co-ordinate policy with other European countries on that matter and I know that we shall remain there.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the Leader of the House aware that the answer given by the Prime Minister today to the question about unemployment by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition showed the Government's complete disregard for rising unemployment? Is he also aware that the unemployment figures for this month are the worst since 1981? Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friends to arrange for an early debate in Government time, because the Government are responsible for the level of unemployment, so that the matter can be debated and unemployment may return to the Government's agenda?
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's accusations about my right hon. Friend. It is important to remember that the Government's policies have created well over 3 million extra jobs since 1983. It is also relevant that we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the
1116
European Community. The hon. Gentleman asks for a debate, but he knows that we have debated economic matters a good deal in the past few weeks. Therefore, I cannot promise another early debate on the matter.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On the subject of Monday's debate and votes on capital punishment, how do the Government propose to deal with the ingenious but alarming new clause that has been tabled in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and several of his hon. Friends? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new clause, which seeks to abolish the death penalty for treason in time of war, raises a wide range of fundamental issues relating to the defence of the realm and constitutional principles which are utterly different from the normal arguments about capital punishment for murder? Is not that quite the wrong way for the House to tackle—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That issue would be more appropriate for Monday's debate.
Mr. Aitken: My question is simply this: will the Government allow the Treason 1790 Act to be repealed on a free vote on such a mish-mash of an amendment?
Mr. MacGregor: For Monday's debate, the Government have tried to ensure a range of clauses on the matter of capital punishment so that the House can not only have a proper debate but can take decisions by a free vote. I think that is how the House would wish to proceed.
My hon. Friend draws attention to the clause in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and some of his hon. Friends. It is not for me but for the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide whether to select that clause for debate. I think that my hon. Friend has a point when he says that it is in a different category from the other new clauses. If it is selected, it will be for the House to express its view in the debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who hopes to speak in the debate, will express some of his views on that matter and on the other clauses.
Mr. John Hughes: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 232, which draws attention to the plight of the elderly and the disabled in the recent blizzards?
[That this House is gravely concerned at the plight of the elderly, the disabled and all low income groups; is aware that the beauty of the Christmas card landscape, effected by the artistry of frost and snow, hides a relentless, remorseless enemy which brought death to some in the current severe winter weather and put at risk many more thousands who were required to use fuel to excess in the circumstances because of the abnormality of the extreme cold weather; and calls on the Prime Minister to bring an end to this risk by activating immediately the special cold weather payments.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the Prime Minister that an unheated home soon becomes an icy tomb and will he make the strongest representations to him to authorise the payment of the severe weather allowance?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that specific terms and conditions have to be met before that allowance can be paid, and that is the right way in which to approach the matter.
Mr. Ian Bruce: When we debate on 17 January how we conduct ourselves in the House, may we have an opportunity to vote on some issues and make some decisions? I have been in the House for nearly four years, during which time we have often debated these subjects, but we have never had an opportunity to vote for changes. Opposition Members too have campaigned long and hard for decisions to be made. May we do that on 17 January?
Mr. MacGregor: The debate on 17 January is on the Ibbs report, which is about the finance and administration of the House. It is an extremely good report and I pay tribute to Sir Robin Ibbs, and all who work with him, for his work on it. The report contains clear and specific recommendations and I hope that the House will express its views on those in the debate so that action can be taken on them.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does not the Leader of the House know that it is Government, not Opposition, policy to allow hospitals to opt out, and that one in five of the hospitals proposing to opt out are on Merseyside in my area, where there is no public or staff support for the proposals? Those proposals have never been debated on the Floor of the House. The people in my area are demanding an answer from the Government and an opportunity for their representatives to raise the issue on the Floor of the House.
Mr. MacGregor: The whole issue of the Government's NHS trust policy has been frequently debated in the House and in Committee. Many opportunities for raising specific cases in the House are available to hon. Members—through questions, Adjournment debates and many other ways. It is also possible to do so on Supply days. In the past, the Opposition have used Supply days not to debate their policies but usually to debate Government policies.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend register the widespread dismay expressed on both sides of the House in relation to a glaring omission from next week's business statement? Tuesday will be the first anniversary of the Security Service Act 1989, which enabled the Security Service to have a tribunal for the airing of complaints from the public. During the first year of its operation, the Commissioner of the Security Service is entitled to produce a report and to report to the House. Why is that report not to be debated in the House next week?
Mr. MacGregor: It will not be debated next week because we have other important business to debate next Tuesday, but I shall look into my hon. Friend's point and write to him about it.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the suffering and loss of life caused to animals being transported live to the continent for slaughter, on which there are a number of early-day motions? Is he aware of the intense public revulsion at the practice? If we cannot have a debate on that next week will he, as a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, impress upon his colleagues who now go to the Council of Agriculture Ministers the need to
1118
change the rules so that animals that are due for slaughter on the continent should go there as carcases, not as live creatures?
Mr. MacGregor: That topic has been discussed several times and I cannot promise a debate on it next week, or in the first week that the House resumes. I am sure that there will be other opportunities to discuss that matter, which I know concerns many people.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on procedure, specifically in respect of the relationship between taxation and expenditure? In local government, it is not possible to make spending proposals without relating them directly to the revenue that must be raised. Many right hon. and hon. Members, and many others outside the House, are fed up with Opposition proposals which, although they may be desirable, are unachievable and take no account of the. cost. Can we bring our procedures into line with local government in that respect?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I very much share his view on the way in which the Opposition approach such matters. He will have an early opportunity to raise that subject, because we will have a debate on public expenditure plans not long after the House returns from the Christmas Adjournment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman review his decision about a statement on the crisis arising out of last week's severe weather conditions? Is he aware that, in the east midlands, more than 100,000 people are still without electricity and that thousands are without water? I have just spoken to a farmer who is still attempting to rescue 1,000 sheep and 100 cattle from snowdrifts and who is also without electricity and water. Will the Secretary of State for the Environment and Secretary of State for Energy get together to ensure that proper safeguards are immediately introduced to force the electricity boards to get the job done, that compensation is paid to those who have lost thousands and thousands of pounds, and that local authorities have enough money to do their job properly?
Mr. MacGregor: I extend my sympathy to all those who were without electricity during last week's exceptional weather conditions and particularly to those who remain without a supply. However, the new regional electricity companies mounted a magnificent effort in restoring supplies. Fewer than 43,000 customers remain without a supply, and all but a few in the most remote areas should have their supplies restored by the weekend. Co-operation between the electricity companies has been most impressive. East Midlands Electricity has about 2,000 operatives from other parts of the United Kingdom working to restore supplies, which is a good example of the co-operation that I have praised.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment? Recently, there have been redundancies in the glass manufacturing industry that relate to insulation. Could we have a debate on home insulation and the possibility of restoring grants, which would not only help to keep people warm but keep people in work?
Mr. MacGregor: There are regular opportunities to discuss such topics and the Government have taken action on some of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I cannot promise a debate in the near future.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House encourage the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement as soon as possible on British Rail's proposal to close the Speedlink fast overnight goods service, which will put between 1·5 million and 3 million tonnes of goods on to the roads? Are the Government serious about reducing road congestion or will they allow British Rail to close that valuable service, which will create about 1,000 redundancies and increase congestion? That can be avoided at the cost of only about £30 million.
The Confederation of British Industry—which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is a Tory front organisation —complains that road congestion already costs Britain £15 billion a year. Is that Tory policy in action or will the Government do something—or at least make a statement to the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the CBI and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that one must examine cost-effective solutions. The decision to close the Speedlink freight network from July 1991 is a commercial one for British Rail. A relevant factor is Speedlink's serious commercial losses of £30 million last year, increasing towards £40 million this year, on a turnover that is not much greater than £40 million.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathetic response to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), but may I point out, with respect, that responsibility for the safety of mariners—including fishermen—rests not with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but with the Secretary of State for Transport? None the less, I readily appreciate that a comment or two will be made on the subject during this evening's debate.
May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the last occasion on which the House debated the safety of fishermen at any length was in connection with a private Member's Bill presented by Sir Albert McQuarrie, the Safety at Sea Act 1986? Do not we need an early debate about the rules and regulations governing the occupational safety of the men who face so many physical and, I would say, man-made hazards as they go about their ordinary, everyday working lives?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that today's debate on fisheries matters is very important for the fishing industry. I hope that he agrees that, for the convenience of the House, we should reach it as soon as possible—taking into account briefly, as part of the debate, a statement on the tragic incident that has just occurred. I have already said that I will raise some of the other points that have arisen in connection with that incident with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Ron Brown: May we have an early debate on law and order? Earlier this year, a minor public figure was hauled before a Sussex court because of a story concocted by a former secretary and a known
1120
criminal, backed by the News of the World. The police have since admitted that the fingerprint evidence did not match the fingerprints of the defendant.
Clearly, that is an important issue. Moreover, the Government and the Crown prosecution service are trying to bring Desi Ellis back from Ireland—to extradite him, in fact—on the basis of alleged fingerprint evidence. Surely the activities of the Crown prosecution service should be debated at length. Many other issues are involved, including the imprisonment of a person who has not paid the poll tax—and rightly so. We have a law in this country, but surely the House should examine the question of justice in detail, preferably at an early date.
Mr. MacGregor: We have had many debates recently on law-and-order issues. Obviously, I do not wish to comment on the specific points and the specific incident raised by the hon. Gentleman, because it is not a matter for me and I do not know the details, but I do not think that it justifies a full debate on law and order.
Mr. Greville Janner: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Home Secretary deliberately fail, or refuse, to answer a question about the Leicestershire police? In the circumstances, may we please have an early debate on the present dangerous circumstances? Not only is the police force undermanned, but it has run into a deficit of £1·25 million. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about what is happening to policing in our county. This is not a party matter; we are all anguished by the lowering of the protection that people need in these times when the crime rate is soaring in Leicestershire.
Mr. MacGregor: I did not hear those earlier exchanges, and I do not feel that the matter justifies a debate in Government time.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Government meet 51 per cent. of all police expenditure through specific grant and also meet additional expenditure through the revenue support grant. I understand that it is Leicestershire county council which is unwilling to meet its share of the costs faced by the Leicestershire constabulary, which is why cuts are now required.
Mr. Max Madden: May I press the Leader of the House for a statement next week on the Government's plans to help the homeless, which have just been announced by the Prime Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange, as part of that statement, for an urgent investigation of the cash crisis faced by the Bradford Cyrenians, which is threatening their ability to help the poor and homeless in Bradford? As Leader of the House, will he press the authorities to make Westminster Hall available to give shelter to the hundreds of men and women who are now sleeping rough throughout Westminster and who would also serve as a daily reminder to Conservative Members of the Government's failures in economic and social policy?
Mr. MacGregor: We have made several announce-ments about homelessness and the hon. Gentleman will know that an extra £300 million is targeted at London and the south-east to deal with that. That includes £115 million for the second year of the special homelessness initiative. Local authorities in London and the south-east will shortly be invited to submit bids on that.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider asking his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Social Security, to make an early statement about the operation of the cold weather payment? Is the Leader of the House aware that, if Tory Members are not concerned, Labour Members are desperately concerned about pensioners who are unable to keep their homes warm? Is not it disgraceful that, in this day and age, so many of our retired citizens have to live in such conditions during the winter months because the Government will not provide assistance? We require an early statement; we do not expect pensioners to freeze before the House of Commons has an opportunity to discuss the matter.
Mr. MacGregor: No. We devote substantial resources to pensioners in all sorts of ways, and we have also taken action, when appropriate, on severe cold weather payments. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will continue to keep a watchful eye on events and take action, as we have clone in the past.
Mr. Winnick: We want a statement.
Mr. MacGregor: As for a statement, we must wait to see whether we reach an appropriate moment for a statement.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House look again at early-day motion 161 on reasonable hours?
[That this House notes the encouraging tone of the Prime Minister's reported remarks in the Mail on Sunday on 2nd December, relating to the introduction of more sensible hours and conditions for the House of Commons; and calls upon the Lord President of the Council to bring forward, after due consultation, proposals to effect such a change.
Will he welcome on a personal basis the Procedure Committee's decision to look at sitting hours early next year? If he chooses to submit evidence on the matter will he pay particular attention to the needs of hon. Members who travel from the north and from Scotland and Wales and how the arrangements can best suit them?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I am considering how best to take forward all the representa-tions made, and that includes what the Procedure Committee feels it should do. It has become clear from the way in which the debate has proceeded over the past few days, not necessarily in the Chamber but more widely, that there are many different points of view, depending on individual circumstances, not least the issue of where hon. Members' constituencies lie. All those issues will have to be taken into account.
The hon. Gentleman will know that this has been looked at several times in the past and that quite a few initiatives have been taken. I keep stressing that it is important for hon. Members to co-operate on all those initiatives, including those we are looking at now, if they are to be effective.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will next Monday's debate on the Criminal Justice Bill allow a comparison to be made between the maiden speech in the House of Lords yesterday of the former Home Secretary, Lord Waddington, on the need for the reduction of custodial sentences, and the sentencing last Friday of a
1122
20-year-old unemployed man in Grantham for being unable to pay his poll tax? It has cost the state more in the past week to keep him in prison than the debt he owes.
If that is not possible, will the Leader of the House tell us when he intends to bring legislation before the House to bring English law in line with Scottish law? Two years ago —25 months, to be precise—the Government abolished imprisonment for debt in Scotland, so why is it that, in England and Wales, young people can still be put inside for the crime of being poor?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman frequently misses the point. I do not see how those issues can be raised in Monday's debate.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 223 on the electricity crisis in the east midlands, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
[That this House re-affirms its deep concern for the plight of masses of people in the East Midlands who are still without electricity supplies five days after the arrival of severe weather conditions; notes that on 12th December some 250,000 people were still without electricity supplies and that under present arrangements significant numbers of these will be without electricity for well over a week before their supplies are reconnected; expresses admiration for the considerable efforts of hard-pressed electricity workers it their attempts to re-establish supplies; but condemns utterly the failure of the Department of Energy to either declare that an emergency exists or to move essential resources into the East Midlands to tackle the crisis; regrets that East Midland's Electricity has itself to ask the Department of Energy to take emergency action; and believes that this is due to fears of the impact that such a move would have upon the floatation and sale of its electricity shares.]
For five and a half days now, 100,000 people in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and generally throughout the east midlands have been without electricity. The Minister said earlier that 43,000 customers had no supply. A total of 40,000 of them are in the east midlands area. There is a massive crisis and people have been without electricity for considerable periods up to five and a half days, but it will be considerably longer before their supplies are reconnected.
The problem exists not in isolated rural areas but in conurbations. We should have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy so that we can question him, or an emergency debate on an issue that is a crying shame. If we do not get that, we should get the resignation of the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that is appropriate, but I repeat that the regional electricity companies have been making superlative efforts to restore electricity supplies. I cited the fact that about 2,000 employees—relevant experts—from other parts of the country are helping to restore supplies to the east midlands. It has been a splendid effort by all concerned.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Government find time for an early debate on science policy, given the severe cuts in prospect in Britain's science base and the declining support for industrial research and new technology, at a time when our competitors are increasing theirs? Of the past six debates on science policy,

1123
only one has been in Government time, and that was as long ago as Friday 14 June 1985. Is that a fair reflection of the Government's pride in their record?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Government expenditure on science, in terms of public funding, has increased substantially in the past two years. It would be appropriate, therefore, to ask that question in a debate on public expenditure. We intend to have a debate on the public expenditure White Paper fairly soon, when it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make such comments as he wishes. I am sure that he will receive a sound and good response from the Minister.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on large firms, particularly in the London area, that are encouraging their staff and officers to work illegally on the next two Sundays before Christmas? We have had numerous debates on Sunday trading and Sunday laws. Only last week, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), said:
"The law is the law … There can be no dining a la carte with the law of the land."—[Official Report, 5 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 325–26.]
There should be no dining à la carte with the law on Sunday trading. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a debate and that those who are irresponsible enough to ask their staff to work on Sunday are stopped by him and by the Government?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Shops Act 1950 provides that, in general, shops should be closed for the serving of customers on Sunday, except for the transactions listed in the Act. No exception is made for Sundays at any particular time of the year. Equally, the hon. Gentleman will know that we debated the anomalies that have arisen as a result of that Act but failed to reach a solution that commanded general agreement. The Government have made it clear that they are prepared to consider alternative methods of reform if they are practical, enforceable and likely to command a parliamentary majority—a precondition of a successful outcome. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficulties of finding an agreed way forward.

Consolidated Fund Bill and Christmas Adjournment
4.14 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday 19 December.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my Office not later than 10 pm on Monday 17 December. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published the following day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
I remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 20 December, up to nine Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the results made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Death Penalty (Amendment)
4.15 p
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a simple matter. In answering the question raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the Leader of the House said that the amendment which stands for debate on Monday in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), myself and others sought to overturn the Treason Act 1790. That is completely untrue. The record should be amended to show that we seek only to change the penalty.
Mr. Speaker: Assuming that the amendment is called for debate, that matter will be debated on Monday next.

BILLS PRESENTED
  WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
  Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide for the drawing up of a written constitution for the United Kingdom; for its consideration by the people and Parliament of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
  HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS)
  Mr. George Howarth, supported by Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Joe Benton, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. David Clelland, Ms. Clare Short and Mr. William O'Brien, presented a Bill to establish a limit to the period during which homeless people may be accommodated in bed and breakfast accommodation to enable local authorities to make use of accumulated capital receipts in order to provide additional low cost housing for rent; to enable local authorities to finance private sector leasing arrangements for housing homeless people by restoring the provision for a separate allowance within housing revenue accounts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
ESTIMATES DAY
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY] [1ST PART]
    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1990–91 CLASS IV, VOTE 2
    [Relevant documents: Third report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1989–90 on Company Investigations ( House of Commons Paper No. 36) and the Government reply contained in the White Paper, "Company Investigations" (Cm. 1149).]

    Companies and Financial Services
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £14,304,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration. —[Mr. Redwood.]
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
    4.16 pm
    Mr. Kenneth Warren: I beg to move,
    That Class IV, Vote 2 be reduced by £10,000 in respect of Subhead K1 (consumer and investor protection).The Select Committee on Trade and Industry has carried out extensive investigations into the way in which investigators work in policing business standards. Rising at this hour of the afternoon, I almost feel that I should seek the leave of the House. This is the second time that I have spoken in the House today, having spoken after midnight last night. I hope that I do not trespass on your patience, Mr. Speaker, by speaking now. I trust that hon. Members will hear me as kindly now as they did then. My hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs, who sits on the Government Front Bench, had to endure that speech as well.
    We are calling for a reduction of £10,000–I believe that it used to be £1,000, but it has been inflated to a more respectable figure. We want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the public are rightly worried about investigation standards and the qualities of those carrying out investigations on behalf of the Government in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the self-regulating regulatory agencies which result from the financial legislation of the past decade.
    It is interesting to note that the increase proposed in the supplementary estimates is £2·7 million. Although that sum covers expenditure on several aspects, it reflects the rise to £9 million in 1989–90 from just under £7 million in the previous financial year. Even taking inflation into account, there has been a small, but important, increase in expenditure.
    Hon. Members who supported me on the Select Committee and others wish to take part in the debate, and I trust that I shall not detain them long. I should like to concentrate on three items: who pays for investigations, who investigates and a particular investigation relating to the House of Fraser.
    Who pays? It is interesting to note that, in 1988–89, the cost of the Department of Trade and Industry investigations was £6·2 million and the income from

    1127
    Companies house fees and charges was set to recover the costs arising from the regulation of companies, including the costs of investigations. Three investigations have principally dominated the headlines of the press. The investigation into the House of Fraser cost £1·5 million, the investigation into Guinness cost £1·6 million and the investigation into County NatWest cost £1·1 million.
    The Select Committee recommended that more steps should be taken to recover the cost of investigation from the companies and individuals involved unless the inspectors found no evidence of wrongdoing. We persist in that view, and we do not expect those who have not erred and strayed to have to pay for those who have. We hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that requirement should be an expectation of Government and should be under review at all times, so that we ensure that those who have erred and strayed pay for their misconduct.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Can my hon. Friend explain what the Select Committee had in mind? Was it that the inspectors should make a recommendation about whether the company under investigation should pay the costs, or was it that the Secretary of State should make such a recommendation? Would not it be rather invidious to leave it to the Secretary of State? It might be better for the inspectors in reaching their conclusions to determine that matter.
    Mr. Warren rose—
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is quite important that the Chairman of the Select Committee should not be asked what the Committee had in mind. What it had in mind it said in its report. Although any member of the Committee may give his own view, it is quite improper to ask the Chairman of the Committee what the Committee had in mind that it did not say in its report.
    Mr. Warren: I am extremely grateful for both those interventions. One has ensured that I do not commit the Committee to something that it did not have in mind and the other has ensured that I am allowed to say what I have in mind.
    In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), I must say that I do not mind who makes the recommendation as long as somebody does. If my hon. Friend wants me to choose, I will say that, bearing in mind the fact that we believe that the inspectors should come to conclusions, I believe that they should also come to a conclusion on the costs. However, I am prepared to be swayed on the matter in our debate.
    Who investigates? The Committee was very concerned that it took a long time for the inspectors, who are the investigators, to be appointed, especially in insider dealing cases, in which it can take weeks or months. That response time is not in line with business needs. Business should not be held up if there are no problems, so one must get the answers as quickly as possible. The fact that weeks or months often elapse before inspectors are appointed is not acceptable in this country where the highest standards are expected of business and where the Government are expected to act promptly in response to the perceived problems.
    1128
    We came to the conclusion that the right staff—there are many in the Department of Trade and Industry—need to be supported by more people from various professionally skilled occupations. It was good to see that the Government conceded in their reply:
    "it would be desirable for a somewhat higher proportion of investigation staff to have full professional qualifications".
    That is important. We have noticed in the past decade of inspections that too often we did not see inspectors reappear to help, so the Government and the public are losing the lessons that have been learnt. The learning curve for inspectors is always steep; they come into the job and they have to find out how to do it. It takes them a long time to acquire the internal expertise they need to carry out investigations.
    I hope that it will be possible for the Government, and especially for the Department of Trade and Industry, to look at the calibre of the staff in the investigation service, and either to bring in more people or to encourage people within the Department to enhance their own qualifications so that the highest possible standards of investigation can be available at all times. Perhaps the Department could establish a panel of inspectors who could be on call so that there should be no delays such as those that we encountered in our review.
    Sir Anthony Grant: I am not endeavouring to probe the collective mind of the Committee, of which I was a member, but does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have the very best inspectors, they are inevitably people who are busy and successful in their own professions and cannot therefore spend a vast amount of time probing and fathoming things as my hon. Friend has suggested? That is another reason why it is important that there should be very good back-up, since otherwise we shall have second-rate inspectors or the inspectors will be deterred from carrying out that work ever again because it takes up so much time.
    Mr. Warren: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we hope that more inspectors will be drawn from within the Department, thus keeping the learning that has been acquired at public expense within the Department.
    Let us consider the time that recent investigations have taken to complete. The 10 investigations in 1987 took an average of 14 months to be completed under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986. In 1989, 16 investigations were launched, of which seven are not yet complete, but the average time is already running at over 12 months. I know that it looks on the surface as if there has been more malpractice, but perhaps one could look at it the other way round and say that there is a higher quality of investigation in the Department. In any case, there is no shortening of the time taken in investigations. In saying that, I am not taking any account of the point that I made earlier about the time that it takes to appoint the inspectors.
    I turn now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) about the duties of inspectors. The Committee came to a firm conclusion, after hearing evidence from both sides, that conclusions should be expected from the inspectors, taking account of the evidence before them. We are pleased that the Government agree with that recommendation, because the inspectors must have an end duty in sight, which is what one would expect of men of the calibre required to take part in the investigation.

    1129
    My last point on this area deals with the time taken by the investigations, to which I have already referred. In their reply, the Government said that they did not believe that it was wise to have time targets. The Committee was concerned that if targets were not set, the open-ended nature of the investigations would not concentrate the minds of the investigators in the way that we believe they should be concentrated. This is merely standard management practice, and I am sure that the whole Committee will stand with me in commending it to the House.
    I refer now to the investigation into the House of Fraser. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the then Leader of the House replied, in answer to requests from hon. Members of all parties about the publication of the House of Fraser report, that he had taken note of the fact that the Select Committee was itself carrying out an investigation. I drew his attention to the fact that we were not looking at specific investigations, but at the nature of investigations and the way in which they proceed with a view to making recommendations thereon. However, during those investigations and subsequent to the publication of our report in May this year and the Government's response to it three months later, we have been receiving further information on the subject.
    As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House of Fraser report was passed to several authorities in March this year. The Bank of England had received a copy earlier. Those who received the report besides the Bank of England included the Solicitors Complaints Bureau of the Law Society, the Securities and Investments Board, the Securities Association and the body with that most complicated title of all—the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association, or FIMBRA. I shall go through the last four in that group and return to the position of the Bank of England.
    The Solicitors Complaints Bureau said in a memoran-dum which the Department of Trade and Industry kindly passed to the Select Committee that it recently received a report from the solicitors instructed by it to investigate the part played by Herbert Smith in the matters dealt with in the inspectors' report. I have been pleased to learn in the past few days that no evidence has been found of professional misconduct by that firm of solicitors. However, the time taken to carry out that evaluation is worrying. It took some seven months. It must cause considerable anxiety to a firm such as Herbert Smith, which is well known internationally, to know that it is under investigation. It was probably dealing with all sorts of contracts of major importance during that time, some of which may not have been placed with it while the investigation was proceeding.
    I have no duty to speak on behalf of any firm, hut it occurred to me that the time taken to investigate a company such as Herbert Smith is unduly long, particularly when the Solicitors Complaints Bureau—a professional organisation—has the duty to carry out that study.
    Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: In view of what he just said, will the Member—
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Honourable Member.
    Ms. Mowlam: I beg his pardon.
    Will the hon. Member accept that one of the difficulties of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau in the report was over
    1130
    the distinction between a solicitor acting as a referee and a solicitor acting as an advocate and that that was part of the confusion? Does he have any views on that point which the Solicitors Complaints Bureau should consider?
    Mr. Warren: The hon. Lady is right. I refer to her as an honourable Lady, and I accept her comment.
    The Securities and Investments Board believed that it did not have much more to contribute on the matter, and I accept what it said for the moment. I am reticent to pass any comment because the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will have the pleasure of the company of members of the board as witnesses next week. I would not wish to dull the enthusiasm of any members of the Select Committee to hear the excellent questions that I am storing up for that occasion.
    Turning to the Securities Association, it is good to see that, since the events leading up to the appointment of the inspectors, both Kleinwort Benson and Macarthur and Co. Ltd have been through the Securities Association's rigorous and vigorous authorisation process and that both firms are now subject to the principles and rules established by the Financial Services Act 1986. It is worrying that it took an investigation to bring them to that happy position.
    I turn lastly to FIMBRA, before coming to the Bank of England. FIMBRA has told us that it is monitoring the position continuously—a nice phrase. But it is the regulator of only a small proportion of the business of Harrods bank.
    The area of principal concern to me, and on which I believe that other hon. Members wish to comment, is the position of the Bank of England. It has had several inquiries by the Select Committee. We asked it on 21 March 1990 what action was being taken about Harrods bank following publication of the inspectors' report on the House of Fraser. There ensued an exchange of letters. The Governor of the Bank relied on section 82 of the Banking Act 1987 and told the Chairman of the Select Committee and, therefore, the whole Committee, in a letter dated 3 August 1990:
    "I am told by a senior counsel that I am at risk under section 82 if I disclose information concerning Harrods bank unless I am able to do so under one of the exceptions provided for in the Act".
    Section 82 makes it a criminal offence to disclose information received under the Banking Act other than to people specified in section 84 or, under section 83, to others to enable the bank to discharge its functions under the Act—something with which you are immediately familiar, Madam Deputy Speaker. That did not satisfy the Committee. In response to my further letter of 17 October, the Governor replied that the legal advice which he sought did not cover whether the Select Committee could compel him to disclose confidential Banking Act information, nor whether in so doing he might be protected by parliamentary privilege. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is much more adept at these matters than I am, and he will wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to comment on this particular area.
    I have taken advice from those who serve us in this House, and I am told that, if the Governor gave the information to the Select Committee, his evidence would be covered by parliamentary privilege. On page 132 of "Erskine May", the general rule is that the House

    1131
    "will treat the bringing of legal proceedings against any person on account of any evidence which he may have given in the course of any proceedings in the House or before one of its committees as a breach of privilege."
    Whether the courts would entertain an action against the Governor for having given evidence contrary to the provisions of a statute, and how the House would enforce its authority if necessary, would depend on the circumstances. I hope that you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, in the traditions of the House, it would be surprising if the House did not take some action in support of the Select Committee and its privileges.
    I have not yet covered the powers of the Select Committee to send for persons, papers and records. Before embarking on any such matter the Select Committee would consider the consequences carefully. I speak for myself when I say that I hope that the Governor of the Bank of England will look carefully at his position. As, since before March 1990, he has had an opportunity to look at the situation relating to Harrods bank, it is high time that he responded on behalf of the Bank of England to this worrying matter, whether or not the bank and its directors, including the Fayeds, are trading in a proper manner as required under the Banking Act 1987.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend reaches the substance of the matter, may I ask whether it is not absolutely clear that the order of the House establishing the Select Committee gives the Committee power to send for persons, papers and records and that, in the light of the precedent of the moneylenders' case, the House enforces the order of the Committee to answer to the satisfaction of the Committee, not the House, such questions as it is pleased to put? There is no question whatever that the Governor of the Bank of England is not above the law of the land or of this House, but is bound to answer questions from the House. A judge who entertained a criminal proceeding against him in the light of that would expose himself to dismissal by a motion of both Houses of Parliament.
    Mr. Warren: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is perfectly correct. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Committee on which I serve as Chairman has many parts to it. I am the nicest of people and I am surrounded by elegant gentlemen, like my hon. Friend, who are of a much tougher calibre than I am and who express forcefully what I feel. It is hard to hold on to my job with such elegant advice all around me. We have yet to hear from our friends on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Anthony Nelson: My hon. Friend will recall that, in the section of our report that dealt with the House of Fraser, two main conclusions and two recommendations were made. Neither of the Committee's important conclusions was addressed in the Government's published response. Both the Committee's recommendations have been summarily dismissed by the Government in their response. Those of us who do not want that matter to be whitewashed, who are not prepared for it to be quietly forgotten—many regulatory bodies would seem to prefer that—are not happy that the House, or the Committee, should persist, pursue and prosecute it. Surely
    1132
    it is most unsatisfactory that such important conclusions and recommendations were not given the attention, or assent, that they deserved in the Government's response.
    Mr. Warren: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has summed up accurately the feeling of the entire Committee. I should draw to my hon. Friend's attention, however, the fact that, since the publication of our report, new brooms have swept through the Department of Trade and Industry in Victoria street, of which my hon. Friend the Minister is one, ably supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    If my hon. Friend the Minister has an opportunity to participate, I am sure that he will want to assure all hon. Members, and not just my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and me, that there is no cause for the concern that my hon. Friend was right to express. It is not right that this issue should drag on for ever in this manner.
    I have sought to identify the need for constant public assurance that the United Kingdom regulatory system is of world class calibre. That assurance of quality must be the hallmark of the United Kingdom if it is to be the premier financial services nation of Europe. We cannot count on London, Bristol, Edinburgh or any other of our financial centres holding on to that premier position. Frankfurt is coming up fast behind, and it is anxious to establish itself as the major focus of Europe.
    The Government must demonstrate that they un-derstand that assurance is required today and at all times. The Government must recognise their duties, so that there is a constant assessment of the self-regulatory organisa-tions' performance. Investors require such essential confidence in those organisations at all times. The powers of protection and vigilance must be sufficient to the task expected of the Government.
    4.42 pm
    Mr. Stan Crowther: The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) has, on behalf of our Committee, covered the specific recommendations in the report. I should prefer to make a few general comments.
    No one really knows the full extent of financial crime committed here or elsewhere. The one thing that is certain, however, is that far too much of it is going on. On page 4 of the Government's response to our report, they make an apt comment when they say:
    "The financial services area is a particularly attractive target for fraud, since its raw material is other people's money".
    That sentence sums up the problem well, but it is a pity that the Government's response has, in general, failed to recognise that the problem is as serious as that sentence suggests.
    It is clear that the development of information technology, which allows vast sums of money to be switched around the world in a matter of seconds, has made financial crime much easier. It is also clear that that crime is now committed internationally on an unprecedented scale. I fear that the villains are in front of the forces of law and order and are getting even further ahead, which is disturbing.
    On 15 October, the House debated one of our previous reports on financial services in relation to the single European market. I contributed to that debate and the

    1133
    Minister, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—I congratulate him on his well-deserved promotion—accused me of casting aspersions
    "on practically the entire City and much of the corporate sector."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 1020.]
    Nothing could be further from the truth. I did not doubt then, nor do I now, that the vast majority of people employed in financial services are perfectly honest, and as anxious as we are to root out the criminals. That does not alter the fact, however, that such crime is widespread. I do not believe that the country is tackling it as vigorously as necessary.
    A few weeks ago, before our debate in October, the newly appointed director of the Serious Fraud Office said that the cases under investigation by her office, or awaiting trial, involved sums totalling £1·16 billion. By any standards, that is not peanuts; such is the scale of the problem.
    During our long inquiry, I felt that the cases that were coming to light represented a minority—the tip of a large iceberg. One of the problems facing the prosecuting authorities is the slow pace at which investigations proceed —the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye has referred to that. The most obvious recent example of that is the notorious Barlow Clowes affair, but there are many others. We are far too slow in proceeding with such investigations, and that creates problems for the prosecuting authorities.
    Another problem that confronts those authorities is that, once the wrongdoer is caught and convicted, the courts often impose derisory sentences. We appear to operate different scales of penalties for different classes of offence, even though all the cases relate to dishonesty of one kind or another.
    A few weeks ago, there was a press report about a member of a local authority who received a fairly lengthy jail sentence for fiddling his travel expenses to the extent of a few hundred pounds. When we contrast that with the sentences that were imposed at the end of the Guinness trial on some extremely rich people who engaged in serious crime involving millions of pounds, no one can pretend that there is any real fair play when it comes to court decisions. The public find that most disturbing.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: May I say that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman?
    Sir Anthony Grant rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. One intervention at a time, please.
    Mr. Crowther: I am happy to give way again.
    Sir Anthony Grant: I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but judges must take into consideration the length of time that people have been in agony or at risk because the case has taken such a long time to come before court. In those circumstances, much of the punishment has been suffered before the actual conviction. That fact, however, reinforces the hon. Gentleman's point that it is necessary for procedures to be speeded up. The Guinness case was far too long; it is an example of why justice should be speedy as well as just.
    Mr. Crowther: I agree, and the whole Committee was unanimous on that issue. I hope that it will be taken up by those responsible for carrying out investigations and bringing matters to the courts.
    Most alarming throughout our inquiry was the complacency, indeed inertia, of the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). From his laid-back attitude, one might imagine that there was no problem and that any difficulties that did exist were not worth bothering about. His attitude was exemplified by his almost incredible refusal to take any action against the people whose reprehensible conduct was graphically described in the House of Fraser report. It was almost unbelievable that no action was taken at the end of it all.
    That general feeling that there is not a lot to worry about comes through in the Government's response to our report. It does not apply as seriously as it did to the attitude of the then Secretary of State, for the Government admit that there is a problem, but they are not taking it as seriously as they should, and I do not find in their response the sense of urgency that the Committee tried to bring to the attention of the Government.
    I hope that the present Secretary of State will a more realistic attitude. As a former Treasury Minister, perhaps he understands more clearly the need for absolute probity in financial dealings. I agree with the hon. Member for Hasting and Rye that, if the City of London is to retain its place as the greatest financial centre of the western world, those who besmirch its reputation by criminal acts must be relentlessly pursued and severely punished when they are caught.
    4.52 pm
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I cannot reasonably, in the short time we have for this debate, cover the whole spectrum of this immensely important report. I express at the start my disappointment that the new Secretary of State did not think that the response to this very major report which is being debated—which is not an Adjournment debate, to which a Parliamentary Secretary or Under-Secretary of State is the appropriate replier for the Government—was one that warranted his presence in the House. I think that is a matter of regret. I am bound to balance that comment by saying that I am equally disappointed that my colleagues on both sides of the House do not also regard it as a matter which ought to require their attendance in the House.
    If you look, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the number of questions that there have been on the Order Paper in the last nine months on the matters covered by this report, I think it is a matter of shame that the hon. Members who asked those questions did not think it necessary to be here today to listen to, or participate in, this debate. This is not a matter of criticism merely of hon. Members or Ministers; it is of both.
    I direct my particular attention to recommendations which I will read out. Number 23:
    "We recommend that company law be amended to provide that (1) if inspectors report that directors have given false information to them, the Secretary of State should automatically apply to the court for their disqualification".
    That has not been done in the case of the House of Fraser, where knowingly lying statements were made to the inspectors.

    1135
    I am not a lawyer, but I have little doubt that the provision of the Perjury Act 1911, I think section 6, which makes it a criminal offence knowingly to make an untrue statement, which is materially untrue, before a court or tribunal, even though not under oath, constitutes perjury, where the person concerned has a duty to do so. I understand that in the case of the Al Fayeds, the only question which perplexed the mind of the Director of Public Prosecutions was the extent to which they had a duty to make the—untrue—statements which they made. But untrue they were, and that is known.
    Whether the fate of a grandiose firm of grocers and haberdashers should be a matter of concern to this House I beg leave to doubt. That is not a great matter to us, however Harrods may describe itself. But it happens to embody a bank, Harrods bank, and the regulatory organisation for banks is the Governor of the Bank of England, and it is that to which I intend to turn my main remarks today.
    For most regulatory organisations there is a Minister answerable to this House, or else there is a court of law. But here we have the Governor of the Bank of England who is the regulator of banks with very clear duties laid on him by statute, and among those are whether the persons running a bank or controlling it are fit and proper persons.
    How it can be held that somebody who has lied in a major degree to a company inspector is a fit and proper person to control the Harrods bank passes my understanding. So the first thing that is relevant for us to consider is whether the Governor of the Bank of England, who was invited to give private evidence to the Committee but declined to do so, has discharged his duty properly. If he does not discharge it properly in the case of Harrods bank, are we—and we are the Select Committee on Trade and Industry upstairs, and we are Members of the House of Commons here in this debate—entitled to assume, or dare we assume, that he does perform those functions properly when the Government—the Minister responding to our recommendations—have given no satisfactory reply to our recommendations?
    Why does it matter if a fishmonger, butcher and haberdasher with a bank attached has a corrupt ownership, because the corrupt ownership is also the shareholders? So in law the shareholders are not at risk except by the same corrupt ownership. It matters for this reason. The whole of that pyramid enterprise is enormously in debt, and its debts extend in a large degree to the weakest of the three great banks in this country, whose own stability is not out of question at this moment.
    So if the Governor of the Bank of England does not discharge his regulatory duty properly in the context of Harrods bank, and the whole edifice of which it is part comes tumbling down because it cannot meet the interest on its enormous loan of debt, that has an implication—I would not want to say a fatal one because it probably is not a fatal implication—for one of our three great clearing banks for which the Governor of the Bank of England has another enormous regulatory responsibility.
    The House of Commons has, and it uses as its instrument, the Select Committees which have grown up, first, since 1971; and then—since the then Government refused to put the Procedure Committee's recommendations for reformation of them into practice, it had to wait
    1136
    until 1980—since 1980 we have had the much stronger Select Committees, in which the House reposes its trust for examining not only Government but other bodies which control our nation, in a manner directly or indirectly responsible to Ministers, who in turn are responsible to this House. And that is why this debate is so important. It is important because the banking system of our country is different from that of the United States of America, which may shortly be in cascade collapse through lack of proper regulation. We have to learn from the lessons of other countries, and within the United Kingdom we have a very imperfect system of banking regulation—imperfect if the Governor of the Bank of England either does not read evidence sent and addressed to him by first-hand witnesses —not tittle-tattle—or if he ignores such evidence because he finds it embarrassing. If he will not respond to the Select Committees of this House which have power to take evidence in strict confidence, then to whom is he answerable?
    Mr. Warren: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to make it clear that as yet we have not sought to send for the Governor, but that we have the right to do so.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We have communicated with the Governor. He has refused to give us information, and the moment of this debate was not of our choice. It was the choice of the Leader of the House, and I would have preferred it to have come later so that we could have had the Governor of the Bank of England, who, in response to our first inquiry, asked the wrong questions of his legal advisers. He did not ask whether he could tell the Committee the truth. He asked whether, outside the Committee, revealing information that we needed to discharge our obligations to this House would constitute a criminal offence.
    This was not the question that the Governor needed to ask. I could have told him the answer to the question that was material: that proceedings in Parliament, which taking evidence from witnesses pursuant to the Order of the House most certainly is, are wholly outside the province of the criminal law of this country; and any judge who heard an indictment on such a matter and who did not throw it out as outside his jurisdiction would open himself to dismissal by both Houses, not because of amour propre. The Houses of Parliament today only exert their privilege not as it has historically existed but in so far as it is strictly necessary for them to fulfil the trust that the House has reposed in them. That is the restriction in which privilege today is applied.
    Can anybody believe that inquiring why the Governor of the Bank of England does not use his regulatory functions against admitted liars running a bank belonging to and secured on an organisation of doubtful capacity to meet its financial obligations and in debt to one of our major banks is not a matter on which this House has the proper right to inquire in confidence? Then the only way to deal with the situation—I repeat to the Minister of State, since the Secretary of State is not here—is to raise it tonight on the amendment—a very rare one indeed—to the proceedings today.
    I add for the information of the House that I have sat on the Select Committee since it first existed in 1971. Unusually, this Committee has always sat mixed. It has not sat Government supporters on the right, Opposition on the left, and then voted on party lines. One of the

    1137
    greatest Chairmen under whom I have ever sat is the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). This Committee since 1971 not only has always sat mixed: it has always endeavoured to serve the House of Commons rather than the political parties from which its members are drawn. I wish that that could be said of all Select Committees.
    In concentrating on the supervision of banking, which has to be one of the aspects that emerge from our report on company investigations, I do not wish to usurp the function of the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service. It is because in this case there is a bank which is embodied in a grocer, fishmonger and haberdasher that it comes within our remit. But if that—and here I rest my remarks—reveals a dangerous weakness in the control mechanism which is the personal responsibility of the Governor of the Bank of England, and he has declined either to justify his inaction or to report his action to the Committee charged by this House with supervising that immensely important aspect of our affairs, then he ought to call into consideration his own occupancy of that office.
    5.9 pm
    Mr. Doug Hoyle: First, I must declare an interest. I am the president of Manufacturing, Science, Finance, which has more than 80,000 members working in financial services. Secondly, I congratulate the Minister for Corporate Affairs on his promotion and look forward to his winding-up speech.
    Thirdly, this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to follow my good friend the hon. Member for Tiverton, (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), to whom it is always worth listening. He has no interest of any kind to declare and is fearless and of independent mind. I do not always agree with his views, but I always listen to them in the Chamber or in Committee with great interest. All hon. Members have benefited from his forthright style in presenting his case. I agree with every word that he said about the Governor of the Bank of England. The Committee needs to ensure that the Governor appears before it and stops making feeble excuses and hiding behind legal opinion which, as the hon. Member for Tiverton has shown, does not stand up to scrutiny.
    Like other hon. Members who have spoken, including the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), I shall refer to the House of Fraser. I am sure that you will be busy over Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if you can spare the time and have not already read the inspector's report, may I recommend that you do so because it is far better than any mystery novel. If a book were published containing events such as those that appear in that report, no one would believe that they had happened. The television serial "House of Cards" is more believable than some of the events that are recorded in the report.
    The report is right in what it says about the people running the bank and the largest corner shop in the country. The report says that the Fayed brothers dishonestly misrepresented their origin, their wealth, their business interests and their resources to the Secretary of State, the Office of Fair Trading, the press, the House of Fraser board and shareholders and their own advisers. It is amazing that the Fayed brothers are still there.
    1138
    The report has shown deep flaws in our system of company investigation and in the role of the Department of Trade and Industry in protecting shareholders, consumers and, not least, the public interest. After six years and six Secretaries of State, and despite the catalogue of dishonesty and deceit outlined in the report, it is clear that no action will be taken against the Fayed brothers by the DTI, by any of the regulatory bodies or by the Governor of the Bank of England. There could not be a clearer indictment of the system as it stands.
    Perhaps I may remind the House of the history of this case. In 1984–85 and amid some controversy, the Fayeds acquired House of Fraser Holdings. That gave them not only the ownership of the largest chain of department stores in Europe but, as the hon. Member for Tiverton said, status as bankers through Harrods bank. As the inspector's report shows, since then the Fayeds have systematically lied about their circumstances to prevent the authorities from intervening.
    In 1985, the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry were deliberately misleds by the Fayeds about their assets and business interests. Their claims that they had widespread international interests in a number of businesses have since been shown to be false. Their interests in shipping, construction, oil, banking and other areas were minimal and their claims did not fit the facts that emerged.
    The assets of the Fayeds were tiny and could not have generated anything like the capital that was used in the House of Fraser takeover. That has been satisfactorily illustrated in the inspector's report. Time after time the Fayeds failed to give a proper account of how they financed that takeover. People could speculate about that, but I do not intend to do so. The claims made on behalf of the Fayeds by Kleinwort Benson and by Herbert Smith have also been shown to be untrue.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: False.
    Mr. Hoyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman. False is a better word. There is a fine distinction in relation to Herbert Smith because it was not acting as advocate for the Fayeds at that time. We must take up the matter with the Law Society when it conducts an inquiry. Perhaps the House should return to the issue of how the firm of Herbert Smith discharged its duty in that respect. I am not completely satisfied about the way in which it was done. The hon. Member for Tiverton told me that what the Fayeds said to Kleinwort and to Herbert Smith was false.
    The Fayeds' claim that they were worth several billion dollars was also false and they are not from an established family of Egyptian landowners. One genuine detail appears in the inspector's report, and it is about the conduct of Mohamed Fayed in the capital of Haiti in 1964. According to the report, he entered into a deal, using a false identity, to modernise the harbour, and subsequently absconded with up to $187,500 that belonged to the harbour authority.
    Despite everything that we know, the Government have repeatedly refused to refer the takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and have not sought to disqualify the Fayeds as directors. It seems to be acceptable to the Government to have proven liars and at least one proven thief in control of a major company, the

    1139
    House of Fraser, and certainly in control of a bank. I am sure that that causes the Minister some concern and I shall listen with interest to what he says about it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) spoke about the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). From the beginning he was not only laid back but confused the issue in his statement to the House on 7 March. On the one hand he said that disqualification should be used as a means of protection for the public, and on the other that it should be used
    "to protect the interests of shareholders."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 876.]
    Section 8(1) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 allows the Secretary of State to apply for the disqualification of an individual when he considers it to be "expedient in the public interest".
    Under section 8(2) the court would then disqualify a director if
    "it is satisfied that his conduct in relation to the company makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company."
    In what sense can the public interest possibly be protected by taking no action? Why were not the courts asked to make their own judgment on the conduct of the Fayeds and their fitness to run the House of Fraser?
    Even more disgraceful was the former Secretary of State's attitude when he appeared before the Select Committee. He refused to give reasons for his failure to take any action that would have led to disqualification. I still do not know why he did not go to court. That is still a mystery to me. He gave us no explanation for it.
    The Government's conduct during the entire episode has been negligent. They failed to conduct a proper investigation during the takeover, and once the facts were known they failed either to refer the takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or to take steps to have the Fayeds disqualified as directors.
    If we can have no faith in the Government's willingness to clamp down on shady business practices, we cannot have much more faith in the regulatory bodies that have been set up.
    The hon. Member for Tiverton expressed the case exceedingly well in his forthright manner when he said that the Governor of the Bank of England has so far refused to come before the Select Committee. The Bank of England will not tell us what it intends to do, but it is obvious that it intends to do nothing.
    The Securities and Investments Board has completely washed its hands of the issue. The Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association is waiting to see what everyone else will do. That is not its only failure. It also failed to act in the public interest with regard to the Levitt group where 18,000 investors are in some difficulty. In the light of what the Select Committee had to say about auditors, it is interesting that Levitt's auditors, Stoy Hayward, were also accountants for Polly Peck. It is a matter of great concern that FIMBRA has done nothing about that.
    As I said earlier, the Law Society cleared Herbert Smith on the ground that it was a referee in the affair, despite the fact that it was used by the Fayeds to provide false information to the authorities.
    1140
    It is perfectly clear that the structure of company investigations in Britain is a bureaucratic nightmare. Because there are so many bodies, the buck can be passed from one authority to another, and often the wrongdoers manage to slip away. We have far too many bodies and the knife should be taken to them. Their streamlining is long overdue. While we have so many bodies, it is not surprising that the crime that was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham is taking place to the extent that it is.
    I hope that there will be some action on many of the Select Committee's recommendations. In particular, I would like a central clearing house to provide comprehensive co-ordination of the regulatory regime to be established without delay. The Department of Trade and Industry should more closely monitor the workings of the regulatory bodies and develop its own permanent staff of qualified investigators.
    In addition, the broader public interest and the way in which it is applied should be more clearly enshrined in company law. Intermediaries should be under an obligation to ensure that they do not facilitate dishonest business practices. Finally, providing false information to inspectors should become a criminal offence and should lead to automatic referral for disqualification from directorship. That is essential.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham that we must not be complacent about the position of the City of London. That we are the greatest trading financial centre in western Europe gives me no grounds for complacency. We are looking at a Europe, whether we like it or not, in which the deutschmark dominates and the Bundesbank is becoming more and more powerful. Unless something is done to clean up our act, to clean up the City of London once and for all, in years to come the centre of financial dealing will move from here to Frankfurt or Berlin. Let us do all that we can to prevent that from happening.
    5.27 pm
    Mr. Douglas French: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry when it prepared its report. I congratulate the Select Committee on a comprehensive, extremely interesting and effective report. Having listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I realise that not having participated in those proceedings was a privilege forgone. However, it means that I have not formed any entrenched views on the matter of the House of Fraser, so I shall leave others to speak about that.
    I want to focus my remarks on some of the Select Committee's other recommendations, in particular recommendation 21, which received a reply on page 15 of the Government's response. That recommendation says:
    "We recommend that the DTI monitors closely the performance of the SIB and SROs in discharging their investigatory duties and reports annually to Parliament."
    As the House will know, under section 114 of the Financial Services Act 1986, the Secretary of State has transferred most of his powers under that Act to the SIB, including investigations and enforcement powers. The Secretary of State has the responsibility of ensuring that those transferred powers are properly carried out.

    1141
    I wish to address some remarks to the respective costs and effectiveness of self-regulation compared with statutory regulation, particularly as it applies to financial services. In particular, I want to refer to the Government's response on page 15. The Government clearly believe that the new arrangements under the Financial Services Act 1986 need a period of stability, to bed down and to demonstrate the Act's full effectiveness. That period of bedding down is fast running out. It will not be long before the Government must decide whether they are to introduce further legislation to amend the 1986 Act's operation, or should consider alternative solutions to the problems that remain under that legislation.
    I do not want to see statutory regulation of financial services. That would result in substantial extra costs for everyone, which would affect the level of funding that we are debating tonight. Also, best business practice in the financial services sector is much more likely to be the route to satisfactory results than a legal jungle of the kind that is to be found in other countries, notably the United States. Having said that, it is essential that the work of FIMBRA, the SIB and the other SROs is made more effective. If that means providing them with additional funding through the DTI—though admittedly the SROs do not receive that at present—or, as The Economist put it recently, beefing them up with taxpayers' money, so be it.
    I believe that the Securities and Investments Board is fairly conscious of the need to watch costs. I expect that, when its chairman meets the Select Committee on 19 December, he will show that the board is cost-conscious. There has been some misguided criticism of the SIB, with references to its luxurious new offices and its staffing levels, but much more important is the extent to which the board recognises when it is appropriate to deploy its full statutory powers in making an investigation, or when its objectives can be readily achieved by less formal and expensive means. Its judgment in that respect has generally been sound. However, I remain of the opinion that the SIB is not as effective as it should be—particularly in its relationship with the different SROs, and with FIMBRA in particular.
    FIM BRA has some considerable operating strengths. I spent some time at its headquarters examining its procedures, and reached the conclusion that it has great strengths, particularly in the collection and collation of material about offenders and would-be offenders. That part of its operation is efficiently and carefully run, and secures most of the information it needs. None the less, FIMBRA remains a victim of its own rule book. In the public's perception, there is a gap between what FIMBRA should do and what it is able to do. There is a gap also between the point at which FIMBRA's responsibilities and powers end and those of the SIB begin, which gives rise to much misunderstanding and ambiguity. Consequently, certain practices have a tendency to fall between two stools.
    That is particularly evident in cases where FIMBRA decides to terminate a company's membership. From that moment, FIMBRA ceases to have responsibility for the ex-member's conduct, and the SIB assumes it. In my experience, the board has shown some reluctance to pursue ex-FIMBRA members in respect of misconduct during their period of membership of FIMBRA, even though the SIB has responsibility for monitoring them. That gap urgently needs plugging.
    1142
    There is something of a gap also between the SIB'S responsibilities and those of the Department of Trade and Industry, which devolves to the board the bulk of its monitoring responsibilities. However, I know of cases in which, when a point has been put to the SIB, it has responded that it is powerless to act, or has passed responsibility to the DTI. But when the same point is taken up with the DTI, it argues that the matter remains the responsibility of the board. That is a nightmare for people pursuing important inquiries.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is unacceptable.
    Mr. French: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely unacceptable. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to tighten up the lacuna between the DTI's responsibilities and those devolved to the SIB. Members of the general public and others wanting to undertake serious inquiries do not want to be shuffled off from one Government body to another.
    I take the view that, in financial services, as in other consumer areas, the principle of caveat emptor remains extremely sound. That does not mean that the public should take a total risk. The public may be expected to do so in respect of the quality of an investment, and that risk cannot be removed from them. However, whereas one can make a judgment at the time of purchase about the quality of a pair of shoes, it is not reasonable to expect an individual investor to make a judgment as to whether or not the company in which he is investing his funds is honest and correctly administered. The individual investor does not have sufficient information on which to form a view and to make a proper judgment.
    Nevertheless, if an investor is called upon to judge the integrity, honesty or administrative competence of a financial institution or intermediary, he should not be hampered in his attempt to do so by the presence of a FIMBRA imprimatur, as displayed in the literature or on the premises of the firm in question. Such an imprimatur, if it conveys anything at all, conveys the message that the company has been judged as honest and one with which the investor may reasonably do business. That is what the FIMBRA imprimatur conveys to the majority of the investing public: that the organisation's integrity has already been screened. When FIMBRA membership is withdrawn without proper publicity and public knowledge, as has happened, the investor is being perfectly reasonable when he protests that he thought that FIMBRA's stamp would provide him with some safeguard.
    Mr. Tim Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks, but a difficulty arises because there is an expectation gap—
    I say that as FIMBRA's adviser. The FIMBRA imprimatur gives some investors the impression that they have a total guarantee, and caveat emptor appears to have gone completely out of the window.
    Mr. French: I accept my hon. Friend's argument, and I should not want investors to imagine that the FIMBRA imprimatur provided them with a total guarantee.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friends have used the phrase "total guarantee". Can we distinguish between a guarantee against criminal conduct and a guarantee of profitability? If an investment yields no profits, it is a bad investment and the result of bad judgment. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French)

    1143
    is making—quite rightly—is that FIMBRA membership should not be taken to relate to profitability; it is to do with policing against criminal dishonesty in the running of businesses.
    Mr. French: That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. I would not seek to protect an individual investor against the investment ability of the firm into which he was putting his money; that is a risk that he must take. There can never be any guarantee in that regard: there will be good investment companies and there will be bad ones, and we must accept the position as it is. If the FIMBRA imprimatur is to mean anything, however, it should mean that a company is adjudged to be an honest company that administers its affairs correctly. At present, the public are confusing the two issues, believing that the one is the equivalent of the other.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Which it is not.
    Mr. French: Which it is not.
    If an investor loses his money in circumstances in which compensation is due, he will encounter significant weaknesses in the present compensation scheme. Since August 1988, under the Financial Services Act, compensation for a loss of up to £30,000 has stood at 100 per cent. It stands at 90 per cent. for a further loss of up to £20,000, with a maximum of £48,000. The scheme is run by a separate company, but financed by levies from the SROs. The payments, however, are not guaranteed: compensation will depend on the number of claims presented in any given year.
    Thus, someone unfortunate enough to make his claim in the wrong part of the year, however valid that claim, may not receive the compensation that he might have received had the claim been made earlier in the calendar cycle. That, surely, is unsatisfactory: if there is to be a compensation scheme, it must of necessity be open-ended to the extent that it is not time-limited.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Does he not agree, however, that difficulties are caused to people who may be faced with a bewildering array of investor compensation schemes? Those dealing with other bodies covered by the Financial Services Act —such as the recognised professional bodies—may find themselves in a very different position from those using companies covered by the self-regulatory organisations created specifically by the Act.
    Mr. French: That is certainly a problem, and I think that much more clarification is needed. It may be simply a question of communication, but I suspect that it goes rather further, and that a tightening of the system will be necessary to enable people to understand fully the circumstances in which they would receive compensation and the precise source of that compensation. If that requires additional public expenditure, we can no doubt make savings elsewhere to cover it.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend has taught me something this evening. I have studied the matter with some assiduity, but I did not know that the pathetic guarantee which replaced the £100,000 stock exchange guarantee, and which has not been adjusted in accordance
    1144
    with inflation and the cost-of-living index in the two and a half or three years since its introduction, tapered off as the year went by. Will my hon. Friend comment on that lack of indexation, and on the difference between the payment now made if a stockbroker defaults and the previous £100,000 guarantee—or was it an unlimited guarantee?
    Mr. French: The compensation to which I was referring does not relate to matters connected with stockbroking firms; it relates to personal investors, and would apply, for example, to an investor who lost money as a result of investing with a FIMBRA member. Over a period, the compensation funds available run out, so that, at the end of the cycle, an investor may run the risk of not receiving the compensation that he might legitimately expect to receive earlier in the cycle.
    Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman said that he would welcome the use of public funds if an increase in the scheme was necessary, and implied that he was sure that the Minister could find such funds. Has he any suggestions about where the Minister could find them—bearing in mind the fact that the Minister took the Barlow Clowes compensation funds from the budget for small businesses, research and innovation and the regions, as reported in the estimates?
    Mr. French: I was not proposing to make any suggestion at this stage, although I shall have something to say about Barlow Clowes a little later. I do not believe that public funding is essential for such purposes; it is one solution, but it would also be possible, within the existing framework, to raise more funds than are currently raised through a levy on the SROs, which derive their funds from subscribing members. If, however, the money cannot be raised through an extension of the existing arrangements, I would expect a small saving to be made somewhere in the DTI's budget. In the context of that entire budget, we are talking about a very small amount of cash.
    We see under subheading (k) of class 4, vote 2 that the figure of £156 million is listed for 1989–90, relating to
    "Special payments to the Government's agents in connection with Barlow Clowes".
    That sum does not need to be included in this year's estimate as the Barlow Clowes affair is now behind us, but I believe that there are other special cases that come close to being in the same category.
    Let me cite a constituency-related case. C. J. How, a company that operated in Gloucester, Cheltenham and Worcester, was a FIMBRA member, and accepted investments from many of my constituents as well as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) and, probably, others in that part of the world. Some of the investments amounted to £20,000 or more. The firm was suspended in April 1987 for failing to submit its accounts. In January 1988, its FIMBRA membership was formally withdrawn because of accounting problems, and at that point FIMBRA's responsibilities were ended.
    The direct responsibilities of the SIB began in April 1988, which was when the relevant part of the Financial Services Act came into force. That meant that, between January and April 1988, the DTI was itself responsible for monitoring the affairs of this ex-FIMBRA member. By August 1989—some 16 months later—the DTI had stepped in and stopped C. J. How from running its

    1145
    business altogether. It then became clear, however, that, in the intervening period—after FIMBRA membership had been withdrawn—particular categories of the firm's business had continued; that unit trust companies and life assurance companies had continued to supply it with investment products; and that investors had continued to invest.
    One of the reasons for investors continuing to invest was that they had not been told about the termination of membership. Existing members reinvested and there were new investors because they did not know that C. J. How was no longer a member of FIMBRA. When asked about that, one of the reasons given by FIMBRA is that it has to restrain itself in the extent to which it publicises the withdrawal of membership in cases where there may be damage to the remaining part of the business that is unaffected by the withdrawal or, in extreme cases, where there might be a claim for defamation.
    FIMBRA makes announcements in trade papers, but such specialist papers are not read by ordinary investors who walk down the high street. It is essential, when membership is to be withdrawn, that a way should be found to let potential or existing investors know about it. It should be more effective than now and should not involve any problems of defamation or damage to the rest of the business.
    At the time of the withdrawal of membership, FIMBRA claimed to have no evidence of fraud or misappropriation. Clients were said not to have been complaining. At that time, no clients were seen to be at risk. However, in the event, many clients lost a substantial amount of money, and in that way it bears a close resemblance to the procedures in the Barlow Clowes affair. As the Barlow Clowes investors have received a substantial amount of compensation, as provided for in the estimates last year, at the very least the investors who lost money between January and April 1988 when the scrutiny of the company lay with the Department of Trade and Industry —it was no longer a member of FIMBRA, and the Securities and Investments Board was not responsible—the Department should accept some responsibility for the losses incurred, especially for those who invested in a company where the FIMBRA imprimatur was still in evidence.
    I wish to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and the remarks attributed yesterday—correctly, I hope—to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). The hon. Member for Redcar said that the Levitt company—that seems to be on everybody's mind this week—raises serious questions about how FIMBRA does its job and what protection is being provided for small investors. I agree that it does raise those issues.
    Some of the events in the Levitt story are extremely similar to those involved in the cases of Barlow Clowes and C. J. How. It is about time that we began to learn from experience. FIMBRA became alarmed during a routine inspection of Levitt when it discovered invoices of £21 million appearing apparently from nowhere. Presumably, in this case, it was to get funds into the company rather than the other way around. That is a substantial sum of money. One must ask whether the discovery came about from one day to the next or whether it evolved over a period. If the latter is the case, it suggests that more regular routine inspections by FIMBRA should be the order of the day.
    1146
    FIMBRA declared itself dissatisfied with the com-pany's accounting records. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North pointed out, it apparently relied upon assurances from the auditors of Polly Peck, if you please, that the client's assets were intact. As I understand it, FIMBRA did not make a formal announcement at that time because of potential effects on the liquidity of the company and the fact that it had no evidence of mismanagement or misappropriation of funds. Therefore, it kept its inquiry secret to avoid public panic.
    As I understand it, and on the basis of press reports over the past seven days, even now the company has not been formally suspended by the SIB but, rather strangely, it has been "effectively suspended". Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us the difference between those two terms. What is more, FIMBRA pronounced that it considered that client money was not thought to be at risk. That was only a few days ago, yet this morning one sees that there are projected losses of up to £40 million. I wait to see how those two positions are reconciled. It may be that the £40 million has nothing to do with client funds. We do not know. But I suspect that the two sums have been muddled up.
    Mr. Warren: I have before me a document published this afternoon by FIMBRA, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend would like to take it into account. It says:
    "FIMBRA's newly-appointed Chief Executive … has praised FIMBRA's regulatory action in respect of The Levitt group Limited."
    Is that not a little self-congratulatory?
    Mr. French: FIMBRA's new chief executive has been in his job for only a few days or weeks. I suspect that he was not in post when the earlier investigations should have been taking place. However, I agree that that comment seems rather more casual than is appropriate in the circumstances. I look forward with great interest to reading the full statement.
    One key problem in the case involving the Levitt group is that there are no specific rules about the way in which financial services companies recognise receipts from long-term contracts, particularly from insurance commissions. The receipt of such commis-sions may be spread over a considerable time, but they may be brought into account the moment the policy or instrument has been sold. The Levitt group has admitted that the commissions were put into its accounts when the contracts were formally signed. That provides no allowance for subsequent cancellation of investments which frequently occurs in that type of personal investment. Therefore, the company is cashing in on the commission before it is in the bag. This is fundamentally unsatisfactory and a proper rule to address the problem should be set out by FIMBRA or the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation.
    Section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 provides that Department of Trade and Industry staff can investigate where they have grounds for suspicion of fraud, misconduct or failure to provide shareholders with information that they may reasonably expect to have. I believe that there is a significant lack of enforcement of those provisions. I want to give an example. I am thinking of cases that also affect the stock exchange regulations, where undertakings are given to repay loan stock at a date in the future but where nothing is done at the date of maturity.

    1147
    For example, the Metropolitan water board 'B' stock was issued under the registration of the Bank of England in a prospectus going back as far as 1908. It was due for repayment in 1958. It was not repaid in 1958. The Metropolitan water board was taken over in 1974 by Thames Water, which was privatised in 1989. The flotation document contains a small paragraph on contingent liabilities, which says:
    "Thames Water has been informed that a holder of part of the loan stock considers such stock to have been overdue for a number of years prior to the establishment of Thames Water Authority and that such stock is immediately repayable together with an additional amount of interest at market rates. The Directors of the company have been advised that the principal amount of stock potentially involved is unlikely to exceed £3 million."
    That reference to £3 million is relegated to a small paragraph in the flotation document.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Was not that a rather economical statement by the directors? Should not they have said whether or not their legal advice was that that amount, however much, was owing or not?
    Mr. French: My hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth.
    The loan stock holders who should have been repaid in 1958 have lost the value of that stock, which remains unpaid, and the interest on it. They have suffered from the fall in the value of the pound since 1958, which amounts to about 90 per cent. If all those factors are taken into account, far from it being a contingent liability of £3 million, it may easily be 10 times as much. If the fall of the pound is taken into account, it may be a further 10 times higher even than that.
    Although I believe that that loan stock should be repaid, I accept that there may be some argument as to why it may not be due. But I cannot defend the failure to state clearly whether it will be repaid, and if not, why it will not be repaid. What hope is there for the small investor whose predecessors invested in that stock? Is he to take up the burden through the courts of reclaiming the amount that he believes to be due? If he is not to do so, could not he reasonably be expected to be told that he has no case? The position in the flotation document is ambiguous.
    That situation is known to the Governor of the Bank of England—to the Treasury, to the stock exchange, to the directors of Thames Water, who are potentially, if not actually, in breach of the Companies Act, and to the Department of Trade and Industry. It has been known for some considerable time, yet no one has been willing to act. A regulatory system that permits that is inadequate and should be dealt with promptly.
    6.3 pm
    Mr. Jim Cousins: I hope not to take up too much of the House's time, but the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am a member, has performed an important function in its report. As it is an all-party Committee, it gives the lie to anyone who might suggest that those who want vigorously and rigorously to pursue the problems of cleaning up the City are simply weevils in the great biscuit of capitalism and do not have the interests of the City at heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) made his views on the matter quite clear and I thoroughly
    1148
    agree with him. It is in the best interests of the City that all these matters, and the detailed matters referred to by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), are pursued with the utmost rigour.
    It has emerged clearly in the debate and from the report that what should concern us is not the writing of a bible to explain the concept of due diligence or to file any amount of appendices, principles or sub-principles to clarify what obligations are owed to a client, but regulation, compliance and enforcement. My hon. Friends and others mentioned the problems at Harrods bank. I shall not refer to them because, bearing in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), and as I have greengrocery in my blood, I should not wish it to be suggested that haberdashery and greengrocery were not equally honourable professions compared with banking. I venture to suggest to the hon. Member for Tiverton that beetroot will be boiled long after the last banker has been buried with whatever honours he or she may have deserved.
    There is no doubt but that compliance is at the heart of the matter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) on her efforts in exposing the Levitt group, with the result that this afternoon an arrest has been made.
    It would be unfortunate and wrong to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester in attributing responsibility for regulation to one or two of the self-regulatory organisations or in singling out individual self-regulatory organisations such as the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association for scapegoating. The structure of compliance is wrong, not the performance of an individual part of it. It would be unfortunate to single out FIMBRA—I have no brief for FIMBRA—because perhaps more than any of the SROs it has tried to let the world know about its regulatory activities. It has attempted to combat the difficulty that was referred to by the hon. Member for Gloucester—that in publishing the names of people from whom it has withdrawn recognition it leaves itself liable to subsequent action. None the less, its record in that regard strikes me as being at least as honourable as any of the other self-regulatory bodies and better than most. It would be unfortunate to think that the matter could be resolved by scapegoating the performance of any of the organisations.
    Resources are of fundamental importance. Any organisation whose activities must be financed by levies on its membership will experience difficulty in exercising effective compliance if the resources that it needs to carry out the compliance effectively are drawn exclusively from those members. Budgeting for effective compliance is one of the great weaknesses of the system created by the Financial Service Act 1986.
    The Department of Trade and Industry has no problem with resources because its compliance activities are financed from the surpluses or profits made from the Companies House agency. I think that last year those profits or surpluses amounted to £11 million. Oddly, far from there being a shortage of resources for public sector enforcement, a profit is being made from it. Plenty of resources are available.
    Those who served on last year's Finance Bill Committee will recall the concession that was given to the City on stamp duty relief in anticipation of paperless trading. Many members of the Committee were staggered to learn that the relief of stamp duty meant a loss of

    1149
    revenue to the Exchequer of £900 million a year. In that context, there can be no difficulty about finding public resources to beef up whatever system of compliance we may choose to adopt, whether it be a statutory one or one using the existing self-regulatory bodies. There can be no doubt about that.
    The present system has limitations and weaknesses. When a crisis arises, there is almost an embarrassment of different bodies involved, all with a small corner of the action. This points up some major discrepancies between the course of action pursued by outfits such as FIMBRA, which attempt to let the world know what they are doing in pursuing their regulatory activities, and bodies such as the Serious Fraud Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, which operate on different principles and where the public's need to know is not so clearly recognised.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an important difference between real and formal information? As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) pointed out, advertisements in financial journals, which often people do not read, may exculpate someone in law for not announcing what he did. But if FIMBRA wants to let investors know when it imposes restrictions, it should issue that information to the popular press rather than just put a notice in financial journals that only financial advisers read.
    Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but we should not lose sight of the fact that even the system of financial advisers that the City has may not be sufficiently effective in picking up these problems to circulate the information. Commenting on the problems of the Levitt group which had hit the newspapers, Tuesday's Financial Times stated:
    "The accounts told a wonderful story of vaulting profits and turnover … but gave very litty indication about the way in which the figures were calculated."
    It is clear that, given the system of auditing and accountancy, even insiders with expert knowledge find it difficult to comprehend the meaning of some published accounts. That point is recognised in the Select Committee's second recommendation.
    We will not make much further progress on company regulations until we tackle the weaknesses of the system of accountancy and auditing. We must recognise the problems in terms of setting accountancy standards—which are reluctantly beginning to be addressed—and the practice of auditing. Auditing firms enjoy a monopoly on external auditing functions. The top 10 firms may possess enormous resources arising out of the fee income from their practice, amounting to thousands of millions of pounds a year. They are major businesses by any measure of size or practice and they wield enormous power. Their performance in the Polly Peck and Levitt group matters does not lend total confidence. Accounts are being exposed as practically meaningless, offering no protection to anyone. They have been beautifully prepared, filed and presented, but have turned out to be worthless. I hope that the Select Committee's recommendation will be pursued vigorously.
    In defence of the existing SROs, I hope that those who apply to them for recognition—I hope that this treatment will be extended to the recognised professional bodies which existed before the Financial Services Act and which were caught up in its mechanism—in the conduct of financial business and who give false information will be
    1150
    subject to criminal sanctions in exactly the same way as people who give false information to the Securities and Investments Board.
    I wish to return to the central recommendation in the Select Committee's first report. We must answer the following questions: what is a company and to whom does it belong? In British company law, a company is narrowly defined—it is the property of its shareholders and directors. We are now confronted with a new situation in which new classes of people are involved in a company's affairs, many of them indirectly through their ownership of life insurance or pension funds. The problems, oppor-tunities and investments of those people are not recognised properly in the existing structure of British company law.
    In a few years' time, we will be confronted with the problem of reconciling our company law with that of Europe, which operates on different principles. It operates in the Christian Democratic tradition—I put it that way because it may be more acceptable to Conservative Members—of social partnership in which workers, employees and managers are recognised as full partners who, through their labour, have a property right in the companies for which they work. Reconciliation of the European approaches to the question "What is a company?" and the traditional British one will trigger a wave of new approaches in company law and new company reforms.
    Many of the proposals by the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) in the debates on the previous Companies Bill will be relevant to that reconciliation—the proposals for audit committees and two-tier boards and the proposals to increase the role of the independent directors accountable to specific social partners, to members of the social constituencies of which we must now recognise companies are a part. With those thoughts, I shall sit down in the knowledge that I shall give the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Chichester a chance to contribute to the debate.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. Anthony Nelson: In the short time left in the debate, I should like to make a few comments because my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and all members of the Select Committee have done the House a singular service in undertaking this inquiry and bringing forward their report. Ever since the passage of the Financial Services Act 1986, the Banking Act 1987, the Building Societies Act 1986 and the latest Companies Acts, some of us have pressed for the supervisory process to be monitored more carefully and be accountable more regularly. Some of us said in the House and directly to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that we would like the Committee to do that. The Committee has done that job in the context of the report, and I am grateful for that. It is an interesting, positive and constructive report.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for referring to the amendment that I and others tabled for debate on the Companies Bill. There is a strong case for empowering members of boards to have rights of auditing reporting and a separate statutory responsibility to ensure that the prudential management of company funds is discharged properly. Under our current unitary board structure, we

    1151
    shall do that only by biting the bullet and empowering a specific body of directors to take that responsibility and not leave it to the voluntary processes, which are disregarded by many companies.
    There is an on-going need for the Select Committee and for the House to supervise the supervisors. In that context, I was pleased to learn that the Committee intends next week to ask the Securities and Investments Board to appear before it so that it can inquire into the board's activities and into its discharge of its responsibilities under the Financial Services Act 1986. That is excellent news and follows the Government's response on ways in which supervisors can be held more accountable.
    Other hon. Members have referred to Harrods and to the role of the Bank of England. I believe that, although, strictly speaking, the Governor of the Bank of England may have been correct in his legal interpretation of section 82 of the Banking Act 1987, it would probably have been a better judgment from all points of view if he had decided to appear before the Committee, if it had invited him to do so. I understand that the Committee has not asked the Governor of the Bank of England to appear before it because the bank has submitted a memorandum in answer to a number of questions and has sought to explain why, for legal reasons, it is not willing to go far in answering the questions that the Committee might put.
    I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Banking Bill. It was clearly not the intention of the House or of that Committee that we should not be able to obtain essential information about the supervision of the banking system. Although it is said that the House of Commons was not expressly mentioned as one of the exceptions to section 82, I believe that it would have been a better judgment for the Governor of the Bank of England to be more forthcoming. We share the objective of trying to ensure the protection of depositors' funds. Confidence is involved in this and the Governor of the Bank of England could have been rather more forthcoming.
    Mr. Crowther: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Nelson: No, as time is limited and I have a lot more to say.
    In recommendation 2, the Select Committee suggested:
    "the permission for auditors to disclose confidential information to the supervisory authorities should be raised to the level of a statutory obligation."
    The House has considered that from time to time, but the Government have been reluctant—as they are again on this occasion—to raise that obligation to more than a moral one. That is probably right as the present improved procedures for reporting are satisfactory. However, there are still shortcomings and the way in which they should be overcome is not, as the Committee suggests, by raising the obligation to a statutory level, but by doing exactly what I proposed during the passage of the Companies Bill.
    We should have audit committees for public limited companies above a certain size. If we brought that about, we should prevent autocratic and powerful chairmen or chief executives of public limited companies being able effectively to defraud the shareholders and to misuse funds under their control. At present, many non-executives in such companies are placemen—appointees of the chairman and the chief executive. They are yes-men on the unitary board. We must find a way to embolden them and
    1152
    to reinforce their ability to bring to account directors who might subvert or covertly misuse funds that are not theirs. As directors of public companies, they are trustees for the shareholders, for the creditors and, to some extent, for the employees.
    Non-executives should be given a statutory responsibility and a statutory ability to inquire about substantial movements of funds within a company. There should, through the audit committee, be a separate reporting requirement from that of reporting to the auditors. We should insist that all the non-executive members of the board—and not the other members—say at each annual general meeting, "Yes, we certify that the auditors have been to see us. We have asked whether there are any unusual movements, capital flows, disbursements or payments that do not fall within the articles of association as we understand them. We are satisfied with the answers that we have received. If we were not satisfied, we should have brought them to the attention of the board." That would not change the course of events, but the matter would be flagged if there were a statutory requirement that at every annual general meeting there must be a report that the responsibilities have been discharged.
    The Department of Trade and Industry has always believed that it must not separate the responsibilities of directors of the board. However, we now face the problem of leverage buy-outs in which massive amounts are involved. Companies nowadays are vulnerable to the misuse of funds or to being defrauded by particular individuals. We live in changing times. We must amend our company law and our supervisory structures within companies so that we can flag the problems far earlier and thereby prevent many problems happening. That major change will come about, although it may require a bear market and some more disasters first.
    Apart from that omission, we now have a sound and effective supervisory structure. If we can bolster that structure from time to time through the discriminating scrutiny of the House, as the Select Committee has done, it will be all to the good for the corporate sector and we shall be discharging an important parliamentary responsibility.
    6.26 pm
    Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and all the members of the Committee on producing a comprehensive report on company investiga-tions. The report is worthy of examination, although I am not saying that I agree with the Committee's conclusions.
    I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that it is welcome news that, next week, the Select Committee is to take evidence from the Securities and Investments Board. When we discussed the structure of the regulatory regime under the Financial Services Act 1986, we were clear that the board was to be accountable through the Secretary of State to Parliament. Parliament has a duty to examine every so often the activities of the SIB and to look at the annual report and accounts. I am not quite as complacent as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) is about the costs, and the Select Committee may want to ask a few questions on that. The SIB does not have the same direct pressure on it as the underlying self-regulatory bodies have

    1153
    from their members to keep costs down. However, under the Companies Act 1989, the SIB now has a statutory duty to ensure that it delivers regulations that are not merely effective, but cost-effective.
    I began working in the City at the beginning of January 1966—almost a quarter of a century ago. Since then, there have been many changes in the City—most of which, I believe, have been for the better. The changes were most notable in the 1980s, when the City became one of the three pre-eminent financial centres of the world, along with Tokyo and New York. That occurred because of the Government's deregulatory moves during that period, which attracted banks and others from all over the world to the City of London. Today, the City of London is pre-eminent not only in banking. The Baltic exchange remains the centre of the shipping business and of the insurance business. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) mentioned accountancy firms, which are very successful, do a great deal of business overseas, and contribute substantially to our invisible exports.
    When we discuss regulation and the important matter of the protection of investors, we must remember that we do not want to over-regulate and thus drive business away from the City. We must find the balance between the two policy objectives. I believe that, in general, we have it about right and that we should not go too far down the road of additional burdens of regulation.
    The other thing that has changed radically in the past 10 years has been regulation itself. Five to 10 years ago, many of the businesses that we have been discussing would have been wholly unregulated. Many of the members of the Financial Intermediaries, Manager and Brokers Regulatory Association still object to the fact that they are subject to regulation. They still find that difficult to accept. Firms of accountants and solicitors have been regulated for many years by their own organisations but, until April 1988, there was no organisation to regulate many of the small financial services businesses. Many are literally shops in the high streets, which offer insurance and other financial services products. They are still getting used to the idea that, in the 1990s, they have to pay a price if they wish to offer financial advice, and especially if they are taking clients' money and investing it on their behalf.
    There can be no objection to such regulation. I am a supporter of the Financial Services Act 1986 and the structures that we established under its provisions. Although I understand the frustration of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Finch) about its failures and weaknesses, given that this system is so new and has been such a radical change, I believe that we should not make any more major changes until FIMBRA has had an opportunity to prove itself. After all, changes were made as recently as the Companies Act 1989. They were designed to introduce a simpler form of regulation but many of them have yet to work through the system. We should allow them to do so. Two of the SROs—the self-regulatory organisations—are about to merge, which will produce a more efficient system.
    We have also seen the establishment of the Serious Fraud Office. We should not underestimate what it is doing at the moment. I went to the SFO about six weeks ago and found it a most impressive operation. We did not have a Serious Fraud Office before, and the responsibility for dealing with serious fraud was widely spread across the different police forces. Today, all the major fraud cases are
    1154
    dealt with by people of the highest calibre. I am glad that the SFO now employs a few accountants who can get to grips with balance sheets. Although my hon. Friends may not believe it, that was a major deficiency previously, because the police did not have an adequate number of people who were sufficiently numerate to cope with major fraud. The SFO also has impressive information technology systems.
    Although it would not be appropriate to go into too much detail, I recommend any hon. Member who is interested to visit the Serious Fraud Office to see what it is doing and the way in which it is preparing evidence for the trials that are due to take place next year. As I have said, it is an impressive operation, but perhaps more resources need to be devoted to it. It has an outstanding head in Mrs. Barbara Mills, who is an excellent appointment. There is no doubt about the SFO's determination to get to grips with serious fraud. We should not underestimate its deterrent effect. The way in which it has dealt with Polly Peck, for example, will send a message to many other people who may be contemplating breaking the law. They will see that we really mean business about fraud, and that we mean to get to grips with it.
    I commend what the Government have done, both in terms of the Financial Services Act and in combating fraud.
    6.32 pm
    Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with much of what has just been said by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who is an adviser to FIMBRA. The mergers between the SROs are an efficient move, and the Serious Fraud Office is efficiently run by a woman. I have no difficulty with that at all. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot argue on the one hand that he can understand the frustration of FIMBRA members who do not want to be regulated, while listening to the tale of woe told by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), whether that relates to C. J. How, Hamilton House, Dunsdale Investment Group, Barlow Clowes or Levitt. We have a serious problem on our hands. Although there may be a need for parts of the system to bed down, there is also a need for the system to be adapted to respond more quickly, efficiently and directly to some of the problems that we are facing.
    I congratulate all members of the Select Committee on what seems to have the general agreement of the House as being a strong and positive report, which has proved useful to hon. Members of all parties. In view of the time constraints, I shall not refer to the House of Fraser because the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and my hon. Friends have discussed it in detail. Looking back to our debate on the House of Fraser, we can see how —let us be honest—the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), hid behind the legal framework and the responsibilities of the Attorney-General. The Governor of the Bank of England is now hiding behind legal opinion. There is some similarity between those two examples in terms of trying to halt the truth and the facts coming out, and action being taken.
    Much of the Select Committee report deals with insider dealing. The Government's response in their White Paper has been minimal although they have gone through a

    1155
    process of consultation. I hope that if the Minister has the time, he will tell us some of the results of the consultation process. I should like to hear some evidence about what the Government will do in terms of insider dealing. That was well researched by the Select Committee and there is no doubt that problems still exist. The stock exchange "Quality of Markets Quarterly Review", summer 1990, outlines the extent of the problem. Of the 103 cases that the stock exchange referred to the Department of Trade and Industry, there have been 42 investigations, resulting in only nine convictions. It is worth pointing out that those convictions cover only the small fry. In the United States, where the markets are similar, the people at the centre of the trading are being caught, but it is a different story here.
    The DTI's confidence to deal with insider dealing is still very low. The report of the accountancy firm Ernest Young states:
    "Over 90 per cent. of people have little or no confidence in the ability of the DTI to deal with fraud of just £10,000." That confidence increases as the amount of money involved increases, but it never gets higher than 60 per cent. of people feeling confident that the DTI will deal successfully with insider dealing.
    We have stated our policy proposals on insider dealing. I am sure that the Minister is aware of them—
    The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood)indicated assent.
    Ms. Mowlam: Yes, but I have a copy of our proposals for the Minister if he has not seen them. We have gone into the matter in some detail. Like the Select Committee, we recommend a number of things such as the introduction of civil law sanctions—as well as criminal sanctions—against insider dealing. We want the criminal law—the Insider Dealing Act 1985—to be simplified and to deal with unpublished price-sensitive information. We do not want it to be a question of only the published price-sensitive information and of whether the authorised person—the tippee—should be named or the provisions should apply simply to an authorised source.
    I agree completely with what the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said about non-executive directors and giving them an auditing function. That is a positive suggestion. However, he implied that that would contradict the auditors' statutory responsibility to report. I do not accept that. I should like to see the two auditing functions. We have recommended that auditors should have a statutory obligation to report suspected fraud in a company.
    We have also made some suggestions about insider dealing and company fraud at the international level because much work could be done, especially with the United States and Japan and, to a certain degree, with Switzerland, with which we do not have even the mutual MOUs that we have at present with our European neighbours.
    I am still disappointed, having read the White Paper, that the Government are not willing to have a centralised database. That should be a basic starting point, which should be expanded internationally as the markets move more globally. We would support such a proposal.
    I shall concentrate my remaining time on the wonderful understatement on page 7 of the Select Committee's report:
    1156
    "Fraud within companies … appears to have increased."
    That is indeed an understatement when one considers the frauds that have taken place since the enactment of the Financial Services Act 1986 and the publication of the Select Committee's report. I seem to have spent most of the short time that I have been doing this job dealing with fraud and responding to statements on fraud. I assure the Minister that I have not done so willingly. I would rather consider the relationship between the City and industry and what we can do to help our manufacturing industry. I would much rather spend my time looking at what we can do in relation to the City and Europe. I wish that I did not have to come to the House, as happened on 7 March in relation to the House of Fraser, to deal with fraud.
    I remind the House of what another Minister said on 7 March—incidentally, Ministers seem to change as quickly as Government statements—when I asked him why the Government did not investigate the allegations in more depth and why they did not fulfil their responsibility to protect the public interest. I asked:
    "Will he insist that those lessons"—
    I was referring to the lessons of the House of Fraser case—
    "are acted upon by the regulatory bodies"?—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 874.]
    The Minister made absolutely no response to those questions and, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, the Government have done nothing since about the House of Fraser.
    The hon. Member for Gloucester pointed out the similarities between the alleged fraud at Levitt and the case of Barlow Clowes. On 13 June 1988 the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), who was dealing with the matter, said:
    "I of course confirm that the interests of investors are our highest priority, and that we shall do all we can to safeguard them."—[Offical Report, 13 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 28.]
    It will be interesting to find out what the Minister or his successors have done to ensure that investors are the highest priority and to safeguard their interests.
    In October 1988 the next Minister said:
    "The Government have acted to correct those weaknesses in the Financial Services Act 1986, whose main provisions came into effect in April this year."—[Official Report, 20 October 1988; Vol. 138 c. 106.]
    Clearly, if they had done so, the problems that we have faced since with Hamilton House, Dunsdale and Levitt would not have occurred. That suggests that we have had statement after statement from Ministers at the Dispatch Box talking about dealing with fraud and investor protection, but doing very little. When will the Minister make some specific points about company fraud and insider dealing?
    The case of Levitt is a good example of fraud, which was related to the Select Committee. It has been mentioned several times. The Select Committee deals with fraud and what the Government's response should be. I shall understand if the Minister does not have time this evening but, in both the case of Levitt and other cases as the Select Committee report states, it would be useful and in the interests of both the broader public and investors if the Minister could answer some of our questions.
    There is a great deal of confusion about whether the Department of Trade and Industry has set up an inquiry on Levitt. Some newspapers say yes and others no. When one phones the DTI it says, "No comment." It would be useful for the public to know what response the

    1157
    Government have made, especially as FIMBRA was in Levitt back in October. One would have thought that even the DTI would have had time to make a response.
    It would be useful if the Minister told us about the nature of the fraud, the amount of money involved and where the £21 million or £20 million has come from. If it is borrowed money, clearly whether that is a printable asset is called into question. The problems faced by investors may be even greater if that £20 million is already set against other assets.
    In response to my earlier intervention, the Minister indicated from a sedentary position that it was not the case that the money was borrowed. If, as in the case of Barlow Clowes and C. J. How—which was raised this afternoon —compensation is needed, where will the money come from? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the money came from a supplementary estimate and £80 million came from industrial budgets for the regions, education and training, and research and innovation. That money went to compensate investors in the case of Barlow Clowes. When, on 19 December 1989, the Secretary of State told the House that the cash would be made available to pay compensation, he did not make it clear where it could come from. The budget headings that I mentioned were down 15 per cent. without taking inflation into account. We suggest that that is where the money came from.
    It would also be useful if some of the other people involved in Levitt made statements about what is happening. There are several well-known directors. Mr Sebastian Coe, who hopes to join us in the House, is one. I am sure that he will not run a mile, or at least a quick mile, at the thought of making a statement. As the Select Committee report said, we need more information in the broader public interest. In the case of Levitt one hopes that other directors will come forward and take their responsibilities seriously. They should state the position as they see it.
    My penultimate point about Levitt is that it is not simply a case of people having invested in Levitt. It seems that the number of small investors is small. The main investments were by four of the larger insurance companies and 70 per cent. of Mr. Levitt's own money was invested. However, there is anxiety about whether the money of the 18,000 investors who have insurance policies or left funds to Levitt to manage in a discretionary fashion is safe. That is the question that many people are asking.
    I have here a large file of letters that I received from constituents about Barlow Clowes. It does not include letters that I received in my role as an Opposition spokesperson on trade and industry. I am worried that if the problems that the Levitt case will cause are as great as many people suggest, several Members of Parliament will receive many such letters from Levitt's investors. It is incumbent on the Minister to make the position clear to small investors who are worried about their future and the fact that they may come out with neither a life insurance policy nor the money that they paid into it. That is the anxiety of Opposition Members.
    In the week of the electricity privatisation, when Ministers have encouraged wider share ownership, it would be useful if the Minister could make a statement about the success of the wider share ownership programme. The "Quality of Markets Quarterly Review" of the stock exchange shows that in 1981, not long after the Government came to power, 28·2 per cent. of the share of
    1158
    United Kingdom equities was held by individuals. That has now fallen to 18 per cent. Does the Minister consider that the Government have been successful in promoting wider share ownership?
    Again I congratulate the members of the Select Committee on producing a good report. I ask the Minister to allay some of the fears of many small investors who have life insurance policies with Levitt and people encouraged by the Government to move from SERPS into private pensions, on which Mr. Levitt took 50 per cent. up-front commission, who are worried that they may have no pension scheme. Those investors are worried and want reassurance from the Minister.
    What have the Government done about investor protection, whether in the case of Levitt, Dunsdale, Hamilton House or Barlow Clowes? As both Conservative and Opposition Members have said today, the financial services system does not protect investors individually, it is costly to the industry and could cost us more as we go into Europe. It is a cumbersome, inefficient system which does not work in the interests of the people whom it set out to protect. I should appreciate a response from the Minister on that point.
    6.47 pm
    The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I shall begin by responding to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). There has been an arrest today in connection with the Levitt group. The police are making inquiries and are working with the Serious Fraud Office, which is investigating the whole matter. That is a sign that the regulatory authorities have moved swiftly and acted with purpose. The question of compensation may arise. As the hon. Lady is aware, most people invested through the company in the form of life insurance policies. They are advised to check with their life insurance company that the documents which they hold relate to a valid, current policy. If not, they should approach the liquidators direct because, of course, the group has been put into liquidation. If there proves to be a shortfall, the compensation scheme provided for under the Financial Services Act 1986 may be called upon. Decisions on that scheme are made by those who run it.
    The hon. Member for Redcar and her colleagues seem to believe that they have a perfect mechanism for abolishing crime. Yet when they were in government for five years they did precious little to amend or strengthen the law on financial services even though they had every opportunity to do so. They certainly did not abolish malpractice or crime during that period. Now they sit like second-rate vultures about to swoop on any company in difficulties where they think that they might pick up a scrap of political advantage. That does nothing to help the City of London or to ensure that it retains and improves its position as one of the world's big three financial markets. Its reputation is high and the Government's actions are designed to improve and strengthen that reputation.
    The hon. Member for Redcar asked me about insider dealing. We have been consulting on it and are examining the replies to determine what type of legislation will be required to implement the directive and respond adequately to the consultation.
    We are improving our record on tackling insider dealing compared with that of our neighbours and partners and compared with experience. The House might

    1159
    like to know that Italy and Germany still have no operational insider dealing laws. France, which has an insider dealing law, has brought two cases to a successful conclusion since 1983. We have had longer experience of insider dealing law. Between 1980 and 1985 some five cases resulted in three convictions. In the past two years, the pace has quickened with 10 cases producing five convictions. The stock exchange is also bringing cases under its own aegis. Under the Labour Government there were no cases and no convictions because they did not think it sufficiently important to introduce a law to make insider dealing a criminal offence. That shows the difference between the two sides in how seriously we take the issue and the action that we adopt to make progress towards a clean, open and honest City.
    Those actions have been bolstered in other areas. In the first six months of this year, following DTI reports, there were 26 winding-up petitions and 12 defendants were convicted on criminal charges other than insider dealing. That illustrates that we are serious about rooting out crime. We shall continue to do so with all the forces at our disposal.
    Ms. Mowlam: The Minister is factually incorrect. Cases of insider dealing were dealt with on the stock exchange before 1980. Since 1970 Germany has had a strict code on irregular dealing on its stock exchange.
    Mr. Redwood: There were no cases of criminal law prosecutions for insider dealing because there was no such law and the hon. Lady well knows it. She is trying a silly dodge to cover a glaring mistake in the Labour Government's conduct when they were in office in the mid-1970s.
    In the first half of this financial year 111 cases were accepted by my Department for confidential Companies Act investigation. That is a major increase on the 68 for the same period in the previous year. It shows that we are taking to heart our duties to follow up those cases that seem suspect and to initiate inquiries where we are concerned about what is going on. In that period we completed 83 investigations compared with 62 in the same period the previous year. Those confidential inquiries often result in matters that need following up either by bringing criminal charges or, more normally, by tough regulatory action. Over half the cases that we investigate lead to such courses of action as a result of findings.
    I, too, am grateful to the Select Committee for its hard work in producing this valuable report. We have responded at some length in the published documents before the House, so I shall confine my remarks to those made during the debate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), who conducted the inquiry with such skill, asked about the pursuit of costs arising from investigation and prosecution work. The Government intend to pursue costs wherever possible and the Companies Act 1989 included proposals to facilitate that process. The award of costs lies with the courts. It is for the prosecutors to make the best possible case where people or even companies are found guilty of malpractice. I promise my hon. Friend that we shall pursue costs wherever possible. I agree that where
    1160
    malpractice and criminal deeds are proven, it is a good idea to recoup some or all of the costs of the prosecutions and investigations through the courts.
    My hon. Friend asked me about the time taken. I agree that it is important to conduct investigations with all due speed, but they must also be thorough and fair, and to ensure that they start on time if the matter is time sensitive. There have been dramatic improvements on the not very satisfactory position of some years ago. For example, between 1980 and 1984 investigations involving outside inspectors took on average five years and one month. Between 1985 and 1988 the figure came down to one year and eight months. We aim to improve on that again, as my hon. Friend would wish.
    Timetables are common practice when we consider how to proceed with these investigations. The Committee thinks that we can work more swiftly on insider dealing. The average time to make appointments is four weeks. We set targets and no target has been set for longer than six months to complete an inquiry. Obviously, we cannot guarantee that every inquiry will be completed within six months because sometimes there are difficulties in pursuing evidence which take time to surmount.
    Several hon. Members asked about the House of Fraser. I am glad that my hon. Friend praised the Securities Association for doing a good job pursuing its regulatory responsibilities with the banks and advisers concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in particular asked about the Bank of England's action. That is a matter for the bank and it can be raised with the Treasury. I shall ensure that the comments made by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are relayed to the Governor of the Bank of England so that he can see the substance of this debate.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that our aim is that London should be the key financial centre in western Europe and one of the big three financial centres in the world. The Government's actions are geared to achieve that. We have an important role to play.
    The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) said, most fairly, that most people in the City were honest. That was a welcome contribution with which I entirely agree. He made a plea for faster investigations and asked for tougher sentences. He will see on reflection that the Government's legislation allows considerable scope for tough sentences to be meted out by the courts. It is not for me, a Minister of the Crown, to go into the individual sentencing decisions of individual courts. Those with an interest in these matters in our legal system will see his comments and his reasons for wanting tougher sentences.
    The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) is keen for my Department to monitor regulators. That is exactly what the Secretary of State and I do. We have regular discussions with the Securities and Investments Board which is, indeed, charged with the task of overseeing the work of the self-regulatory organisations. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that we shall continue to monitor and examine carefully the progress that is being made.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) asked about the compensation scheme. It has an annual ceiling of £100 million which has never been exceeded. It was set as a generous ceiling in the hope that

    1161
    it would never be exceeded. His hypothetical point is not relevant to providing compensation to investors who have lost out in past events.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) stated that compliance was the main point. I agree that compliance work is the most important of all. Much of the rule and law making has been achieved. It is important that those who undertake misdeeds and malpractice are pursued. As I have tried to demonstrate in the short time this evening, that is exactly what is happening on a scale unlike anything that went before. There has been a big escalation in the number of cases being brought and in vigilance. I do not believe that wickedness has increased greatly since the 1960s and 1970s, so it shows that regulators are taking a much firmer line and finding out more of the misdeeds.
    I must conclude now because of time. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for their kind remarks about some features of the Financial Services Act system. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that directors must live up to their responsibilities. Those responsibilities are clear in company law, but I shall do everything in my power to ensure that directors live up to them and I shall pursue directors if they do not.
    6.58 pm
    Mr. Warren: Many hon. Members have asked me not to withdraw my motion and to debate it again after 11.30 pm. However, I now feel obliged to withdraw it. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

    Fisheries
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and her hon. Friends.
    6.59 pm
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
    That this House takes note of the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 11th December 1990 relating to Total Allowable Catches and Quotas for 1991 and its Supplementary explanatory memorandum of 12th December 1990, the proposals described in its un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 11th December 1990, relating to the reciprocal fisheries Agreement between the Community and Norway for 1991, European Community Document No. 9898/90 on guide prices for fishery products for 1991, and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1991 consistent with the requirement for conservation of fishing stocks.
    We shall spend much of this debate discussing the fishing industry and its opportunities next year. Inevitably, our discussion will be based on scientific facts and legal and administrative arrangements. However, I should like us to start by remembering those who died yesterday in the terrible accident on the Premier off the Shetlands.
    It behoves us to remember how difficult and dangerous the job of the fisherman is. Sometimes, people who live in comfortable homes and do comfortable jobs forget how difficult it is for those who work in the wind and weather—not only fishermen, but farmers. We are all aware of the farmer who went out to look after his sheep at the weekend and was left for many hours in the snow. People often forget how much fishermen and farmers give to their jobs.
    The loss of the Premier serves to remind us not only of fishermen, but of the effect of their loss on the small, close-knit communities in which they live. Often the crews of such vessels are related to almost everyone living in a number of houses in small communities. I am sure that those who have been affected on this occasion have the sympathy of not only those who live some distance away, but of the other fishing communities of the United Kingdom. Even though there are occasional disagree-ments between such communities, they come together in understanding the great dangers in which they operate.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. No doubt he will be aware that today the people of Carradale buried their dead and that that community, together with those of Burghead, Lossiemouth and Hopeman, are united in their concern, as are all our maritime communities.
    Has there been any communication between the Ministry and the Department of Transport about the possibility of raising the Premier from the waters in which it now lies—I understand that they are 400 ft deep? It is possible, that some, if not all, of the bodies of my constituents are still on that vessel. Obviously, it is a matter of great concern to my constituents and to the families of the dead that the bodies should be returned, if possible.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman also join me in asking representatives of the press and media to allow the families

    1163
    in my constituency to come to grips with their grief in privacy? All of us share the deep sense of grief and loss felt by the affected communities.
    Mr. Gummer: I do not always agree with the hon. Lady, but her latter request is of particular value. It is of great sadness to many of us that grief is commercialised in such circumstances. I hope that the press will treat the bereaved and the affected communities with the respect that they deserve in such sad circumstances. I hope that they will be left to grieve as they would wish rather than in full view of the rest of the country.
    It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will reply to this debate, to decide whether the Premier can be raised. I want it to be known, however, that the entire United Kingdom is extremely concerned when one of its ships is lost in such a way.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that the House has not had a sustained debate on the safety of fishing vessels since Sir Albert McQuarrie put through his private Member's Bill on safety at sea?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Secretary of State for Transport the belief shared by many hon. Members that we should have an early, critical scrutiny of safety matters as they affect our fishermen in their hazardous work?
    Mr. Gummer: I should be happy to consider that matter with my right hon. and learned Friend. His previous responsibilities will enable him to look at the matter from both sides. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that there has rarely been division in the House about the safety of such vessels. I remember the all-party support that was commanded by Sir Albert McQuarrie's Bill. That Bill was worth while and has done a great deal of good, if only by highlighting the serious dangers that are present in the fishing industry.
    Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way so often at this early stage in our proceedings.
    I reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Today, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and I received a reply to a written answer in which we asked that the new communication system to be adopted in the Clyde, which is a great step forward, be extended to other parts of the United Kingdom so that there is some liaison between submarine commanders and fishing boats. We were told that we must wait to see how the system works before it is extended. We should like to debate that issue further.
    I also received a reply about transponders being fitted to fishing nets to enable submarines to detect them more easily—an idea that we have advanced for some time. The Ministry of Defence, however, said that no decision has been made about who will pay for them.
    Following the sinking of the Antares, the issues raised in those questions are extremely urgent and a specific debate would give Lis the opportunity to discuss them further. I realise that the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence have prime responsibility for such
    1164
    matters, but the Minister has a general concern about the fishing industry and its safety. [HON. MEMBERS: "Briefly"] I hope that he will take up this matter on our behalf.
    Mr. Gummer: I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you enabled the hon. Gentleman to continue his question. He is perfectly right that, although such matters are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the territorial Departments also believe that they have a particular responsibility and concern. Although we do not have control of the legislation, it is the fishermen for whom we are responsible who are most affected by it.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary support of the changes introduced by the Ministry of Defence, but I do not believe there is anything wrong in assessing how that system works before it is extended. I accept, however, that the hon. Gentleman might like to discuss it at greater length and I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friends.
    The Government are sponsoring the research on transponders and I am pleased about that. The work is encouraging and we must consider how to implement the research if it proves to continue to be so encouraging. If a suitable occasion arose, my right hon. Friends and I would be happy to debate this matter. There is no bar on such a discussion and it is a matter for the Leader of the House and others.
    I do not want to understate the importance of what I have already said as it provides the background against which we can discuss other matters. Tonight, however, we are specifically discussing the fishing opportunities for next year. I apologise to the House that no proposals were possible before mid-November when the latest scientific advice became available following the essential autumn surveys. We also had to conclude the third-country talks to arrive at proposals on key stocks in the North sea.
    I know that the House would prefer to have such information early enough to digest it more effectively. As the Minister mainly concerned, I, too, would like to have the information earlier to prepare for the long debates that take place in the European Community. But that is not possible and I comment on my own frustration about it.
    The consultations with Norway have gone through three rounds. They were completed late on 7 December, after the Commission's main total allowable catch and quota proposals were released that afternoon. Hon. Members will see the tight timetable, and I thank the Leader of the House for arranging the time for this debate, so soon after the point at which we were able to tell him that the information would be available.
    We did our best to give firm figures and estimates, where necessary, in the main explanatory memorandum of 11 December. We supplied the supplementary document 24 hours later, and that completed the proposals. The House now has before it the full proposals coming before the Fisheries Council. I am grateful to the authorities of the House—the Select Committee on European Legislation and the spokesmen for the other parties—for their understanding and rapid consideration of the proposals. It is important that we have the views of the House before the Council of Fisheries Ministers meets on 19 December.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The fishermen in my constituency tell me that the failure of the Government to introduce a proper decommissioning scheme has led to the reductions. Is that true?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not know whether they say that to the hon. Gentleman. If they do, even those who want a decommissioning scheme would not support that argument. It cannot be true; there is no way in which the two things could hang together in that way. There is an argument for a decommissioning scheme, although I do not accept it. But it is not based on those premises.
    We shall reach a point at which we can talk about decommissioning schemes—I shall not avoid that—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that we conduct our debates in the House against a background in which the real decisions are bound to be made in the European Community, because fishing is done by the whole Community and the shares of the fishing quotas are worked out among us. In those circumstances, particular TACs and quotas—fishing opportunities—are based on an assessment of the scientific advice. The question of decommissioning or non-decommissioning is totally different. When we discuss it the hon. Member for Workington may wish to intervene again, and I shall be happy to give way to him.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a debate of great concern to many people. We should take matters in order and, when I come to the point about which he wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him.
    I wish, first, to deal with catches and catch returns. There was considerable gloom at the start of the year. The severe cuts in North sea cod and haddock quotas, which are of the greatest economic importance to our industry, were a severe blow. We also had to introduce measures to reduce effort on haddock. It is interesting to note that the majority of vessels took up not the option to use more selective gear but the option of being restricted to 92 fishing days. That is an important point in terms of trying to decide how best to deal with conservation measures.
    It is worth remembering that, of the quotas of most interest to our industry, while 17 decreased in 1990, 13 were increased and 18 remained the same.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman said that many had taken up the option of 92 fishing days. Does he agree that that was a scheme for chosen days, not for consecutive days of the sort that is now under discussion? The idea of expecting people to fish for 10 fixed consecutive days represents a danger, with fishermen having to make up the number in the days following. That could lead to fishermen feeling obliged to go out to sea on the nominated days, even though the weather may be bad and the conditions dangerous.
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is a different scheme. I hope that he will agree that one problem with the choice of days is the question of effective policing. He will agree that in his part of the world there is considerable feeling among fishermen that other fishermen have perhaps not kept to the rules with quite the assiduity that he would expect.
    During this year, our distant water fleet has taken the reduced quotas north of Norway, but poor catch rates in Greenland, unlike the good catches of last year, are
    1166
    making it impossible to take up those quotas fully—reminding us again that the artificiality of quotas is often clearly shown up by the nature of the flow of the water and the presence of the fish.
    Nearer home, there has been a heavier take-up of quotas, requiring considerable management to spread the quota through the year. There have also been considerable management difficulties arising from unusual catching patterns declared by fishermen, particularly of cod and haddock.
    Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman referred to fishing in northern, particularly Greenland, waters. One reason for the poor take-up has been the exceptionally severe weather with the presence of ice. The two together have made matters extremely difficult for our fishermen. I appeal to the Minister—I have made this appeal before —to accept that fishermen should be in Greenland waters only if they have experience of fishing in the area. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman should try to persuade others without the necessary experience not to go into those waters.
    Mr. Gummer: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. People must have track records to fish in those areas. It is difficult to be too prescriptive about such matters, but when it comes to fishing in difficult areas —I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing a difficult area, in which the reasons for not catching have included severe weather and ice—some experience of those areas is important. But how one gets experience if one is closed from an area until one has such experience is a difficulty that all must face.
    We must accept that, even in unhappy situations where patterns do not appear to fit what the expectations were in the returns, fish is in considerable demand and prices have risen greatly. Up to the end of September, the value of all landings increased by 10 per cent., despite a 4 per cent. drop in volume. That is a remarkable fact. Within that total, I highlight white fish, such as cod, haddock and sole, for which there has been an increase in total value of 13 per cent., despite a fall in landings of 13 per cent. That has meant that fishermen have had a significant increase in return, over the increase in inflation. Of course, the customer has had to pay more because there has been less to buy.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister makes a point that we have heard often from the Government—that the revenue in terms of landings has been above that of last year. Does he accept that the costs of the industry have increased dramatically, particularly the costs of interest and boats, because of the high base rate in the last year, and, in recent months, the dramatic doubling in fuel costs because of the increase in the price of oil? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be more sensible to have income figures for the industry, as opposed to just the revenue figures which the Minister is quoting?
    Mr. Gummer: The industry has had consistently, in 10 of the past 11 years, an increase in its returns over and above the rate of inflation. The hon. Gentleman cannot count the rate of inflation twice. The rate of inflation is created by a number of elements and there are many

    1167
    industries in which the contribution, for example, of fuel costs as a proportion of its total costs is considerably greater than that of the fishing industry.
    Mr. Salmond: Really!
    Mr. Gummer: A simple example is the cement industry, where fuel represents 50 per cent. of its costs. It is significantly less in the fishing industry. It does not help the hon. Gentleman's case to suggest other than that. Although the fishing industry has suffered from the reduction in the amount that it can take, it has had the advantage of an increase in the price of what it has sold. Many other industries, not least farming, would envy that. We should always start with facts rather than with embroidering them.
    I am surprised by the amendment tabled by the Scottish National party, because it does not seem to square with the arguments advanced by that party in the previous debate on a similar subject in this House. In that debate, the official Opposition were careful to agree that if we took the necessary tough measures for conservation they would have to have a real impact on fishermen. But the hon. Member for Moray and her hon. Friends suggested that conservation measures could be taken without their causing difficulties for the people on whom they were imposed.
    The same is happening today. There is always the idea that there is a soft option, and it is always the Scottish National party which produces it. The House is tired of the attempt to buy votes today from the livelihoods of fishermen tomorrow—yet that is what the amendment suggests. It suggests conservation measures that do not restrict efforts to catch fish today while hiding from people the fact that their sons and daughters will not have fish tomorrow and that their communities will be destroyed. Both sides of the House should oppose this easy option advanced by the Scottish Nationalists. The rest of us, who are responsible for these matters, have to tell the fishing industry that, to protect jobs in the future, it will have to take some fairly tough measures now.
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my right hon. Friend take the view that I do, that sea fishery committees paid for by local community charge payers, such as the Devon and Cornwall sea fishery committee, are of great assistance to him, bearing in mind that it is difficult to have committees of fishermen, who are at sea so much of the time, communicating to my right hon. Friend's Department local realities and problems? Will he also say a word about the cost of enforcement? In many people's view, the action of enforcement should be by the nation state, but the cost of it should fall on the Community budget.
    Mr. Gummer: I agree that the sea fishery committees are of great importance. We are discussing whether we could extend their remit so that they can carry out an even more useful job in the future. The Scots do not have the same system north of the border. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would like to look at what we do south of the border. Both parts of the United Kingdom can learn from the other. I am sure that we could learn some things from Scotland, but our system works very well.
    1168
    The United Kingdom has been responsible for setting up a European Community police force for fishing and for extending it. The balance is probably about right, but I am happy to re-examine it. Some countries that used to be less than careful about obeying the law are beginning to be much more careful because of the international force for which the United Kingdom is responsible.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Far be it from me to defend the SNP, with whose members I have little in common, but the Minister makes a great mistake if he seeks to turn this serious debate into a party political broadcast—or if he tries to divide us on grounds of party.
    Tough measures to reduce the fishing effort must be taken, as we all agree. But if the Minister reads the amendment he will see that it suggests that it is time we stopped the idea—the hallmark of this Government—that the only way to make progress or bring about change is to inflict pain on people. It appears that one can effect change only by suffering pain—a sort of masochism.
    Mr. Foulkes: It is sadism.
    Mr. Hughes: Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is unanimity among Opposition parties —many Conservative Members agree—about the necessity for a proper decommissioning scheme, and that is how I read the amendment. If that is indeed what it says, I shall support it in the Lobby.
    Mr. Gummer: Nowhere does the amendment mention decommissioning —
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What about structural support?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady can talk in vague terms of structural support, but I am talking about the amendment, in which there are seven lines—all of them meant to divide —before we reach the words "structural support".
    I am making the same point as did the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). There is no need for the House to be divided on the main issues that we have to fight in the European Community.
    Mr. James Wallace: Square mesh panels?
    Mr. Gummer: I will come to them in a moment.
    Once again the Scottish National party is trying to give fishermen the impression that it has a policy different from those of the Opposition or of the Government, obtainable in Europe and therefore viable in circumstances that might attract a vote or two for the SNP. That is what I object to. The House should try to produce a policy which we can fight in the Community and which will benefit all fishermen in the United Kingdom. To do that we must ensure that we table words of agreement.
    Let us examine the amendment in that light. It
    "demands that the Government … pursue a more vigorous policy in the fisheries negotiations".
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I could hardly be more vigorous than we are. Anyone in the Community would confirm that for five years the United Kingdom has exhibited more vigour than any other country, which explains why we have had a better deal than any other country.
    The amendment continues
    "by insisting on implementation of the technical conservation measures on square mesh panels agreed by fishermen".

    1169
    We cannot insist on those things. We have to negotiate them and get them agreed by our neighbours in the Community, which is precisely what we are doing. We are fighting for them in Europe. It is about time that the party that claims to be the European party in Scotland learnt that we do not insist —
    Mr. Robert Hughes: SNP Members have changed their minds about that—the Minister is out of date.
    Mr. Gummer: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman back on my side. I am an enthusiast for the European Community, but I do not go round insisting on things. We must negotiate.
    The amendment continues,
    "rejecting the discriminatory and unworkable proposals on limitation of effort proposed by the EC Claims"
    We have already done that, so I do not see the need for the amendment. The case for doing that has been forcefully presented by the United Kingdom Government, with the support of one or two other countries, and we are likely to enjoy some success on the issue.
    It would be easier if the European Community found that both sides of this House were united, as are the other countries with which we are negotiating —
    Mr. Wallace: I refer to the point about technical limitations. Is the Minister saying that the United Kingdom Government will resist the Commission's proposal for a ban on fishing on 10 consecutive days in a month?
    Mr. Gummer: That is not a technical, conservation measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is not: it is a quota management device. I see that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, a former Opposition fisheries spokesman, agrees with me. If Members of Opposition parties cannot even get the technicalities right in a debate of this sort, it suggests that the Scottish Nationalists are much more interested in politics than they are in fishermen —
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I have made a serious claim and I shall continue to make it once I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, the successor to Sir Albert McQuarrie.
    Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister for finally giving way. He is digging rather a deep hole for himself. Thus far he has managed to unite the Opposition against him. He says that the amendment will not force conservation measures, but it supports technical conservation measures, a clampdown on industrial fishing and participation in the Community's structure policy. Every hon. Member except the Minister seems to know that that policy means decommissioning and lay-up schemes. How can the Minister defend his position in the face of the words in the amendment? In view of what the amendment says, why does not the Minister accept it?
    Mr. Gummer: No doubt the amendment suggests that we are not supporting such things. The hon. Gentleman says in his document that we should move to the elimination of industrial fishing. That is the policy of the Government and has already been put forward. If the amendment contained only that one suggestion I would be happy to say that it was in line with our policy. I have always been opposed to industrial fishing and I have constantly battled against it. The only change in the
    1170
    situation is that many of the species that used to be fished industrially, such as horse mackerel, are now fished for human consumption. There has been a significant change in that respect. It is plain that the Opposition do not understand that. It is a technical matter for the fishing industry. It does not help our battle in the European Community when amendments seek to divide us rather than to support a United Kingdom policy.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gummer: I have given way enough. If I give way any more there will be complaints that I have taken up too much time.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No, because I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Quota levels, however, are not the only preoccupation. Much of this year has been devoted by the Government and the industry to pressing for improved technical conservation measures. I very much regret that a difference of opinion between most member states and the Commission about the degree of change needed prevented the November Fisheries Council from agreeing on new measures designed particularly to help cod and haddock.
    I am a great believer in conservation, but conservation does not mean producing a net that is incapable of catching fish—a proposition put forward by the Commission. We put a net behind a boat and pulled it and caught, I think, eight fish. We cannot agree to conservation measures that are not based upon conserving the jobs of fishermen as well as stocks of fish. There must be a balance and some of the Commission's propositions appear to be devised by people who do not know one end of a net or one kind of fish from another. It will be most important in the near future to secure improved selectivity of nets so that the wasteful catch of juvenile fish can be reduced to a minimum. If we are to do that, we cannot merely accept the proposals put forward by some fishermen because they will not secure that objective. We must consider square mesh nets with meshes that are larger than 80 mm so that the correct balance can be achieved. We are asking for change but it must be realistic. We must strike a balance between conservation of stocks and conservation of the industry. If stocks are improperly looked after, some species will be preyed upon by others.
    Mr. Foulkes: I do not propose to raise the temperature now that it has, thankfully, been lowered. The Minister talks about conservation measures. He knows that precautionary total allowable catches apply to plaice, monkfish and megrim. There is no scientific evidence for those restrictions and no conservation is involved. The Minister gave a clear pledge that the Government would fight hard to increase the allowable catches of new species of fish being brought to the Market. Will he assure us that he will press for substantial increases in the catch of those three species?
    Mr. Gummer: I give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance that where there is no scientific reason or no real concern we will press for the largest possible allowable catch. The issues must be discussed one by one. He will agree that sometimes a precautionary TAC is sensible when, in view of the evidence, that seems the best thing to do and it appears that it would be dangerous to move too

    1171
    far. Perhaps he also agrees that in the absence of full scientific advice it is better to take precautions than to run the risk of exhausting future stocks. As I said, the balance is important and where it is safe to do so we shall fight hard to increase catches.
    Dr. Godman: The Minister said that he saw me nodding in agreement when he spoke about some fishermen not fishing for 10 consecutive days. He spoke about a system of quota management. We are all concerned about safety and this is a serious matter. Presumably fishermen would not fish for six days because the 10-day period would contain two weekends. Some fishermen may stay out in bad weather and because of the difficulties that they face they may be prepared to shoot their gear in unfavourable conditions. That is why I disagree emphatically and entirely with that 10-day proposal.
    Mr. Gummer: I thought that I had made myself clear, but if I did not I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He nodded in agreement that this was a matter of quota management rather than technical conservation. That is important because those are the terms under which we negotiate and seek to get an answer. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's fears. We are looking for the maximum flexibility consistent with proper management and we shall take into account the hon. Gentleman's points.
    In the case of the three species mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), we think that the precautionary total allowable catches are too low and we shall fight for a considerable increase.
    The document refers to structural support and that euphemism, chosen by the hon. Member for Moray and her hon. Friends, means decommissioning. I shall now turn to fleet rationalisation. Since 1988 we have not permitted licence transfers which would increase the tonnage or horse power of our fleet. Earlier this year we extended licensing to virtually all stocks and introduced capacity aggregation. Capacity aggregation brought a little more flexibility into our licence transfer rules, but on condition that any amalgamation of licences was accompanied by a 10 per cent. reduction in fishing capacity.
    Capacity aggregation also gives members of producer organisations new opportunities to rationalise the exploitation of their producer organisations' sectoral allocations. We also circulated to the industry proposals for entitlement aggregation to provide added opportunities for fleet rationalisation. We are reviewing the situation in the light of the industry's comments.
    However, I emphasise that decomissioning is not the way to reduce the pressure on fish stocks and I shall try to explain why I think that that is not the case.
    A case can be advanced to show that it would be nice for a considerable amount of extra money to go to the fishing industry in this way. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that case, but it is not reasonable to say that it is a sensible way to reduce pressure on stocks. It will put more money into the industry, but it will not do the job.
    Even a limited decommissioning scheme would cost many millions of pounds. We could spend a great deal of money reducing the size of the fleet and make very little difference to the pressure on the stocks. If we remove
    1172
    tonnage from the fishing fleet, the remaining tonnage can simply fish harder so that the total effort against the stocks is not reduced. No doubt one could try to reduce that risk by targeting a decommissioning scheme at the most effective vessels, but there would still be the likelihood of decommissioning funds being recycled so that the fishing effort did not really decrease. It would be strange to use taxpayers' money in an effort to remove from our fleet the most effective vessels.
    I cannot help but feel that those who continue to argue for a decommissioning scheme simply want taxpayers' money for the industry regardless of whether that expenditure will achieve worthwhile objectives. I hope that the industry will accept that a decommissioning scheme simply will not provide value for money. It must start thinking constructively about the sort of ideas that we have put before it, and I hope that at least some producer organisations will encourage their members to take advantage of the opportunities already provided by capacity aggregation.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the Minister understand that capacity aggregation would open up the market for predators who would take over the small family businesses which are so important to many of our communities? Secondly, why is it that, apart from Ireland, the United Kingdom is the only country in the EC that has not introduced a decommissioning scheme? Everybody else is further down that route because they recognise that it is an important part of fisheries policy.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady cannot argue that aggregation would somehow have that effect, but decommissioning would not. Does she not think that small businesses would go in for the decommissioning scheme, and that it would not have the same effect? The hon. Lady cannot invent a system which does not mean that those who want to leave will take the money and cease to use their boats. If the hon. Lady really meant that, she would be against not only aggregation but decommissioning. As for her interesting comment that, because the rest of the Community chooses to do this, they must be right and we must be wrong, that avoids the argument. Only three countries are hitting their multi-annual guidance programme targets. The hon. Lady cannot deny that, if there were a decommissioning scheme, people would put their least effective boats in to get the money and keep their most effective boats for fishing. That will happen and, as sure as eggs is eggs, immediately afterwards the House of Commons would say that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had once again wasted taxpayers' money by buying out boats that were not fishing and leaving the other boats to do the fishing.
    Mr. David Porter: Does not my right hon. Friend understand that the British taxpayer is contributing to the other schemes through our contributions to the EC, and that the British taxpayer would like some of that money back here?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must recognise that the Fontainebleau agreement means that if we extended the scheme to the United Kingdom, 70 per cent. would be paid by the EC, but we would then pay 70 per cent. of that 70 per cent. He is saying that to obtain a tiny amount of money we should do something which is wasteful and I am not prepared to do that. I am not prepared to pay 30 per

    1173
    cent. of taxpayers' money to start with, and 70 per cent. of that which remains, to pretend that we are doing something useful. I am prepared to stand up and say clearly that I want to spend taxpayers' money usefully, in a way which will stand up under any investigation, and I do not believe that this will.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I must get on. [Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot say that I have not given way again and again.
    In examining the scientific advice on catchable quantities for next year, we must remember that we are dealing with a naturally renewable resource. It is important to remember that fishing is a hunting industry. To ensure that stocks are renewable, catches need to be managed. Managers cannot do anything about runs of poor year classes, such as we have seen for cod and haddock in the North sea, but we must try to control catches in relation to stocks.
    The Government have a clear record on conservation. Fishing is no different from any other of man's industries using natural resources. We must pay attention to conservation. The Commission has taken a strict view of the scientific advice and is looking for considerable changes this year to shorten the time in which the stocks recover to better levels. We must face the fact that most stocks in Community waters have been heavily fished. This is reflected in the proposal. Among those of interest to the United Kingdom this year, we have proposals suggesting reductions in 23 quotas, proposed increases for nine and no change for 16. We must stay in line with scientific advice, but where it is possible we must temper conservation of the fish with conservation of the fishermen. That is why I answered the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley as I did.
    Many of the present low catches are blamed on the TAC system itself. It is said to have failed. That is not right. A constant theme in the scientific advice is that levels of fishing have been higher than recommended TACs, whether illegal and undeclared, or higher discards than estimated. It is a fact that Ministers have been setting TACs within the levels that scientists have advised are biologically sound, but some fishermen conspire to undermine the system by misreporting, excessive discarding, or perhaps not fully declaring their catches.
    Therefore, we need compliance with fishing recommendations and good catch data. We must remember that TACs provide a framework within which to manage fisheries, both in overall terms and between fishing fleets. Technical conservation measures are important to control the quality and type of fish caught, but they alone cannot achieve successful management of the stock.
    That is an issue which divides hon. Members in some parts of the House from others, but it is important because of the problems that have occurred, particularly in Scotland this year, with the way in which various catches have been reported. It is no good pretending that a system is acceptable to fishermen if some parts of the country believe that other parts have said that they caught fish where they did not. We cannot hide from that. Nor will it be possible to explain to fishermen that we should take
    1174
    unusual reporting years into account when it comes to making arrangements elsewhere. It cannot be done because that position cannot be defended elsewhere.
    I recognise that the outlook for 1991 is difficult, but it will be more difficult if we cannot get on top of such activity. Our key objective must be to obtain the highest level of quotas compatible with scientific advice and to maximise opportunities for United Kingdom fishermen. We must also aim to ensure parity of treatment throughout the Community where measures are taken to deal with particular stocks.
    Secondly, we will of course invoke the Hague preference where necessary. That is likely to be necessary in the North sea for haddock and cod, and on the west coast for whiting and saithe. In the Irish sea, the Hague preference works in favour of the Irish Republic for cod, plaice and whiting.
    Obviously, a balance must be struck, but we must defend our communities that depend heavily on fishing. I regret that the Commission's proposals this year contain no adjustment for the preference. I must warn the House that some member states disagree with the interpretation that the Hague preference applies. They consider that it has already been taken into account in the national allocations. We shall have to fight that extremely hard.
    Thirdly, we need to secure again the flexibility to take western mackerel stock east of 4 deg. west. The substantially changed migration pattern of that stock, which now spends longer in the Norwegian exclusive zone, caused considerable difficulties between the EC and Norway in establishing a mutually acceptable arrangement for the proportion of that stock which might be taken. We are pleased that the EC-Norway agreement, as initiallised, provides for the Community to implement the flexibility if it chooses to do so. I intend to press that it does so choose.
    Fourthly, we shall seek a sensible allocation of the horse mackerel TACs, particularly in the western zone, to reflect the increasing fishery for human consumption purposes to which I referred earlier. In our view, that should be given priority over the former industrial fishery. I repeat what I have always said in the House, that I do not believe in industrial fishery ever taking priority or being acceptable where there is any danger to the stock.
    Fifthly, on the measures to control effort on cod and haddock in the North sea and the west of Scotland, we must accept that something needs to be done. This year's proposal is positive in that it applies to all member states concerned. We recognise that the measures as proposed by the Commission would be painful for some vessels, but at the same time recovery will not be possible without serious action. TACs are essential as a ceiling, but to keep within that ceiling we need to reduce discards to prevent misreporting and so keep catches to TAC levels. Tine Council will also be considering again proposals to improve technical conservation.
    Once again, we shall have a tough time to protect the interests of the industry in our discussions. Those interests are not just about fishing this year, but about ensuring that we can fish next year and the years to come. They are not just about providing opportunities in fishing for some parts of the United Kingdom; they are also about providing opportunities for all parts of the United Kingdom. They are about trying to ensure not just that the British fishing industry has reasonable access to fishing grounds, but that we have fair access to fishing grounds.

    1175
    Above all, they are about ensuring that the rules by which we have to live and upon which our future depends are equally applied, not only between the countries of the EC but between different parts of the United Kingdom.
    7.49 pm
    Mr. Elliot Morley: I congratulate the Minister on giving the House an opportunity to debate before he goes into conference next week these important proposals and their likely effect on the United Kingdom fishing industry.
    I offer my sincere condolences, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), whose constituency suffered the tragic loss of the fishing vessel Premier. As she will know, a number of hon. Members represent Humberside constituencies, and I myself have lived in Humberside my whole adult life and appreciate full well the impact that the loss of a fishing boat has on a close-knit community and how it affects the many people who knew those who served on it and their families.
    My party accepts that we must develop our fisheries as a sustainable resource, and in doing so we must be guided by the best scientific evidence available. However, I am concerned that some of the scientific advice behind the proposals is imprecise. Certain quotas appear to be based on assumptions, and I understand that the scientists themselves have experienced difficulty in backing up their figures with hard evidence—as one might expect in certain instances.
    I am concerned also that the recommendation concerning Irish sea cod, for which a massive cut of 61 per cent. in the total allowable catch is suggested, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the current situation in Irish sea fisheries. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to the Commission that there has been a switch of effort there to hake, particularly in the spring fishery—which is the peak time for cod. It may be that that has not been taken into account in the scientists' figures.
    We all know what happened in area VII this year in terms of deliberate misreporting, and I am worried in case those inaccurate figures have been used in the calculations. I am concerned too about the further North sea cuts that are proposed. I acknowledge that some TACs will remain the same, and that there have been some small increases —particularly in respect of whiting. Nevertheless, given this year's drastic cuts in the existing quotas, does not the Minister acknowledge the importance of at least trying both to maintain the status quo and, where scientific evidence permits, to secure the best possible deal for raised quotas where fishery can be sustained?
    Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that in our previous fishery debate we discussed the fact that whiting was to be allowed to be taken in greater numbers because it is a target species for industrial fisheries. I find it curious that, while such an increase is to be permitted in the North sea, there is to be a decrease in the Irish sea. If whiting is considered to be such a ferocious predator of other fish stocks, I cannot understand the logic of increasing the catch in the North sea but decreasing it in the Irish sea. I presume that the whiting in both seas share the same prey and do not have different diets simply because they are of a different size in different seas, and that whiting in the
    1176
    North sea are not somehow more dangerous than those elsewhere. That is the differentiation that makes people suspicious about the calculations.
    Does the Minister agree that the Hague preference is a blunt instrument? I noted and appreciate his comments, but we should all prefer reasonable quotas and TACs, rather than see quotas cut back to a level at which the Hague preference must be implemented. I acknowledge also the Minister's comment that in certain cases that provision would benefit the Irish Republic at the expense of United Kingdom fishing fleets.
    The proposed cuts in channel flat fish and cod TACs are also worrying. I recently spoke to fishermen in Hastings and Rye about the problems that they have, which very much mirror those of fishermen around the coast—whether north, south, east or west. I note that there could be quota swaps with the Netherlands in respect of North sea plaice to boost the number of fish available, but can the Minister give an assurance that, if swaps with other countries are arranged, they will be based on a direct cod equivalent—if that species is the subject of a swap—and not on one that will benefit other countries? That has happened in the past, particularly with the Dutch.
    Will the Minister try to avoid in this year's negotiations the kind of trade-off given last year, when the Danes received 500 tonnes of cod from our allocation as part of the political wheeling and dealing? I do not underestimate the pressure on the right hon. Gentleman, but given that our own fishing fleet is so strapped for quota, it is hard to see any justification for giving away such large amounts of high-quality fish.
    I am convinced from my discussions with fishermen that, in an ideal world, they would much prefer to control the conservation of fish stocks by the use of appropriate, selective gear rather than by imposed quotas. Given the research and development that is under way, it may be that in time we shall be able to move towards conservation by means of selective gear, but I share the Minister's concern that the 120 mm mesh size proposed by the Commission is far too fine, particularly for mixed fisheries, and would certainly not be sustainable for our northern fleet.
    I know that some British fleets successfully use a 120 mm mesh, particularly in cod fisheries in Grimsby, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). We pay tribute to those who are going for larger, premium fish, and who fish in a way that is both sustainable and conservation friendly.
    I read the reports of the trials using 120 mm and 90 mm nets, and confirm the Minister's claim that during a two-week fishing trip, only eight marketable haddock were caught using the larger net, and no whiting whatever. However, it must be said that the boat used in that trial, Heather Spring —financed by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Sea Fish Industry Authority, Grampian regional council, and the Scottish White Fish Producers Associaton—was a twin-rig trawl. While it is true that the 120 mm mesh net was unrealistic in terms of sustaining any sort of commercial fishery, the enormous discard rate of the 90 mm net should be noted.
    In that experiment, the 90 mm net caught 693 haddock of legal size and 846 haddock that legally would have to be discarded—far more than the total legal catch. The 90 mm net caught 378 whiting of legal size, and 525 undersized whiting that would have had to be discarded. On that basis, for every 100 tonnes of fish of legal size caught,

    1177
    another 127 tonnes of undersized catch would have to be dumped over the side. That proportion of discards shows the real need to move towards conservation gear.
    I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about industrial fishing. I do not recall hearing him make such a strong statement before. On behalf of the Opposition, I have consistently argued for an end to industrial fishing because of its unacceptable ecological impact and the by-catch that it entails. The discard rate that I have described is equally unacceptable. What is needed is a switch to the square meshed panels and conservation gear that are now being used experimentally.
    We should not necessarily lock ourselves into minimum and maximum mesh size requirements. Different mesh sizes may be needed at different times of the year and in different parts of the sea—for example, in nursery areas. There is a cod box off the coast of Denmark where a 120 mm net would not be inappropriate during a period in which the cod were spawning, or considered to be vulnerable. A specific mesh size or gear type may not be the only answer to all our problems; fishermen should be able to operate with more flexibility.
    We know that square-mesh panels result in a significant improvement. We have discussed the research that has been done, and the way in which such panels have been pioneered in this country. It is not clear, however, that the Commission's proposal for upper panels alone is an effective option, especially for cod fishing. It is more than possible that, if square meshes are used, both top and bottom panels should come into play to allow cod to escape from the bottom of the nets. Certainly more research is needed.
    I was alarmed to read that fishermen on the east coast, who have been pioneering the trials, felt that there had been unacceptable delays in the financing and setting up of the experiments. Mr. Trumility, gear development officer at the sea fish gear development centre at the Hull technical unit, told Fishing News that the delays were due to lack of time, resources and staff. Surely the Minister agrees that, with the industry facing a crisis and under great pressure, priority should be given to such research and development. Fishermen themselves feel that they are under a constraint: their problems are not given anything like the same priority as those of agriculture. Of course agriculture too has its problems, but I feel that it is not unreasonable for the two sectors to receive equal treatment.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The problem was illustrated for me last year, when I went to see the Minister with responsibility for fishing about a constituency matter. Fishermen in my area faced bankruptcy during, and following, the inclement weather, but the Minister said that there was no money. Meanwhile, the farmers were tipping over billions. I could not work out why that was.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is always quick to speak on behalf of his local fishermen, and he has made his point very well. When farmers are being paid to set lands aside, it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that fishermen should receive similar assistance.
    Mr. Foulkes: May I give my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) some advice? If he wants to know why that is, he should count the farmers and ex-farmers on the Conservative Benches and then
    1178
    count the fishermen and ex-fishermen. He will find that, while there is a large number of the former, in the latter case there is a big round zero.
    Mr. Gummer: As one who is neither an ex-fisherman nor an ex-farmer, may I say that I am sure that the farming industry would be happy to swap much of the support that it has received for circumstances that would have allowed its receipts to increase faster than the cost of living in nine of the past 10 years? Farming incomes have dropped sharply, and both incomes and receipts have suffered a good deal. Surely it is not unreasonable for us to help.
    Mr. Morley: I do not dispute the fact that farmers have their problems, but I think that the fisheries sector deserves similar treatment. While it is true that farm incomes have been cut—although there was a slight increase in the last financial year—farmers have had their good years and their boom times; incidentally, that has happened more under a Labour Government than under the present Administration.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend should also remind Conservative Members that, in the allocation of resources, share fishermen—who do very badly when the vessels are not at sea, eking out a precarious living—have been doubly maltreated by the Government. Under the new social security regime, they are effectively being denied the benefits due to them: they are paying in more and receiving less while the vessels are laid up for the Christmas season.
    Mr. Morley: I understand that, following a review by the Department of Social Security, it has been decided not to change the regulations applying to share fishermen, who are indeed paying a higher stamp while receiving no extra benefits when they are unable to fish—particularly when laid up in ports by bad weather. I intend to take up the matter with the DSS, and I hope that the Government will reconsider. I do not think that such unequal treatment can be justified.
    I am encouraged by news that the square mesh experiments have been carried out with nephrops, although it is too early to say what benefits will result. I also note that the EC is proposing TACs in all areas; I hope that the Minister will ensure that, if they are applied, the historical track record of those involved in the fisheries is taken into account, and that further consideration is given to the restriction of twin-rig trawls. The Minister has been very good about conservation gear and its effects, but when we have raised the problem of twin-rig trawls—particularly in the nephrops areas—he has been strangely reluctant to take steps to restrict such gear, although the fishermen are very much in favour of it.
    I understand that the EC is considering changes in the horse mackerel TACs. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he would bear in mind the fact that the horse mackerel fishery has been developed for human consumption, which has been a great help to our slowly reviving pelagic fleet. Given its present market, it is a very high value-added product, and it would be a great shame if the fishery were squandered on industrial fishing. I also hope that the Minister will resist any pressure for TACs to be allocated on a national basis.
    The Minister will have been waiting for Opposition Members to mention decommissioning, and I do not intend to disappoint him. We have said the same thing

    1179
    time and again. The Minister was not here when we last debated decommissioning, but at that time not a single hon. Member representing a fishing constituency supported the Government's refusal to provide a decommissioning scheme, and I suspect that the same will happen this time. We know very well that this country has made no progress in meeting capacity cuts in line with the multi-annual guidance programme. We have one of the worst records in the EC. The Minister said that only a few countries have met their target, but at least some have done so. The danger is that countries such as Denmark, which has a high classification and is on line with its target programme, will argue that they should be exempt from some of the technical measures because they have met their targets in line with the multi-annual guidance programme. The danger is that some of the EC proposals will be imposed upon us because we are making no progress in reducing capacity and effort.
    The Minister talked about the last decommissioning scheme and I do not doubt that there was waste and abuse and that it did not meet the criteria. The Minister may not have been here when the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), told the House that it was not beyond the powers of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come forward with a decommissioning scheme that would meet the criteria that we would want to see and ensure that capacity was reduced. In terms of cost, the Minister knows that the scheme is geared towards horse power and the age of fleets. If the older and less powerful boats were taken out, that would be reflected in the overall cost because the scheme is designed to reflect age, power and catching capacity. I do not see any reason why a scheme could not be put together to ensure that boats are taken out and that effort and capacity are reduced in line with the multi-annual guidance programme without it being abused or a waste of money. I cannot accept the Minister's arguments. I do not believe that the necessary expertise is not available.
    Mr. Gummer: A fisherman may have two boats, one fishing for 90 days and one for 100 days. If he takes one of those boats out, is not it possible for the other boat to fish consecutively more days so that the effort is not altered at all? The only benefit that arises is that the fisherman pockets the decommissioning money. There is no way in which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) can suggest that we can use a decommissioning system that does not end up like that. All I am saying is that that is not a sensible way to spend taxpayers' money on reducing effort, although it may be a reasonable way to put money into the fishing industry if that is one's only aim.
    Mr. Morley: With respect, that assumes that if someone is fishing for less time with one boat, he is catching fewer fish. A fisherman may catch a higher percentage of fish simply because he strikes lucky or because of the gear that he is using or the way in which he is working. It is not as simple as the Minister suggests.
    How will we reduce capacity? We are not getting anywhere with the Minister's proposals. The steps that he has taken, such as licence aggregation and proposed entitlement aggregation, only scratch the surface of over-capacity. I should have been more impressed if the
    1180
    Minister had shown the House that some progress was being made towards reaching the targets. We know that the schemes are being used successfully in other countries, which have reduced their fleets in line with the EC regulations. Because they have reduced their fleets, they qualify for modernisation grants and can restructure their fleets to make them more efficient and modern, thereby sustaining their industry at the expense of United Kingdom taxpayers who are paying into the fund but receiving nothing from it, notwithstanding the Minister's comments about the Fontainebleau agreement.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is now showing the absurdity of the scheme. He is suggesting that we should spend money taking boats from the fleet so that there would be an opportunity to take more money to modernise the boats left in the fleet so that their effort would increase. It is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman's taxpayers and the taxpayers of every constituency would be paying for that because of the Fontainebleau agreement. The hon. Gentleman is asking for taxpayers' money to reduce the fleet without reducing the effort and then to modernise the fleet in order to increase effort. It does not make sense.
    Mr. Morley: I do not accept that. Fishing boats do not stay the same for ever. Already, certain parts of United Kingdom fleets, particularly in inshore areas, are having problems with aging fleets. Fishermen, because of the tight quotas, are unable to invest in replacements. There has to be a properly managed and sustainable industry that will ensure that the fishermen can find the investment that they need. Even with a reduced fleet, there will still have to be modernisation and investment. That can be done only with restructuring and we can restructure only with a decommissioning scheme.
    The Minister would have greater credibility if he could demonstrate to the House that something is happening with his policies to reduce effort and capacity. Nothing is happening, so the onus is on him. If he rejects decommissioning, he must produce a workable scheme to meet the objectives, but he has failed to do so.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I put a simple question to my hon. Friend? Will he press the Minister to explain why those schemes work in Europe but not here?
    Mr. Morley: It is for the Minister to answer that. Other countries have not been slow in utilising the money to their advantage.
    Mr. Gummer: First, we must remember that we are in Europe and that we are talking about other parts of Europe. I do not know how we shall deal with the European Community if we continue to talk like that. Secondly, the schemes do not work there either. There is no sign that effort is being reduced in other European countries. The money is being paid out but effort is not being reduced. It is not sensible for us, when we do not receive an enormous amount from Europe because of the Fontainebleau agreement, to do something that is not helpful to us and does not deal with effort.
    Mr. Morley: With respect, the Minister has not demonstrated that what he is doing is helpful. The other European countries have made it clear that they are meeting their targets and are dealing with their fisheries with decommissioning as one of the management tools at

    1181
    their disposal. The Minister is saying that it will not work in this country but is offering no alternative. He does not have a good track record to convince me or other hon. Members of what he has achieved. If the Minister could give us an idea of how he intends to meet the targets under the multi-annual guidance programme, we should be more reassured. We are not meeting the targets and we are not reducing effort. Funds are available in the EC to help with restructuring and reducing effort and the Government should take advantage of them.
    Recently, when addressing the Commission, which was pressing him about restructuring, the Fisheries Commissioner said:
    "The Community participates in expenditure which is spent by member states. You have a right to that aid. The only problem is that as far as the British Authorities are concerned, they have not put in a request for it. I cannot pay subsidies if I am not asked to do so."
    That suggests that the funds are available but the Government are not applying for them.
    I should like to make some positive suggestions that the Minister may wish to take with him in his negotiations. We need an overall fishing strategy. There have been problems enforcing the fishing regulations, particularly in area VII. We are all aware of the fraud that occurred there and I note—I am ready to be corrected —that there has been no prosecution of anybody involved. Given those problems, would the Minister consider compulsory fitting of transponders on all fishing vessels? That would enable fleets to be tracked and monitored through central management. It would be a great aid to the management of our fisheries. It would show where fleets are operating and would have an added safety benefit, because should a transponder stop transmitting, the position of the vessel would immediately be recorded.
    Will the Minister consider involving fishermen more in decision making on conservation? I am concerned that there seems to be little close contact between the scientists, who make recommendations, and fishermen, who well know the movements of fish, their size and their spawning areas. Many times, fishermen have said that certain parts of the fishing grounds could be closed or restricted. I am aware of the programme to close certain sensitive areas, but I do not see why fishermen could not be involved more in decision making, in recommendations and in the management of their fishing grounds.
    It seems that the EC does not consult fishermen closely. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the 10-day restriction to reduce effort. He rightly said that 10 days in every month is no use because fishermen need flexibility of approach. They rely on the weather and the tides. It would be devastating, for the purpose of neat bureaucracy., for them to have to spend 10 days in every month in port and not be allowed to fish. That is not a reasonable or sensible approach. I hope that the Minister will consider it.
    We all know the desperate state that the industry faces if these measures are not amended and practical steps are not taken to assist our fishermen. It is not fair for the Minister to say that fishermen will be compensated by higher fish prices. There is a limit to what processors and consumers will pay for fish. It is true to say that fish prices have increased because of the shortage, but it is wrong to assume that the price will continue to increase pro rata. It will reach a ceiling, below which fishermen will be pushed into ruin.
    1182
    There is a limit to the patience of fishermen while they wait for practical measures such as a decommissioning scheme and a strong and sensible policy to manage our fisheries. I take what the Minister said. I believe that he recognises some of the problems. We certainly have a little agreement on certain parts of his approach to the negotiations, but to deal with the problems that our fishermen face we need a much stronger technical restructuring scheme, at the centre of which should be the decommissioning scheme.
    I return to the original point: so far, the Minister has been unable to offer anything in place of a decommissioning scheme or any evidence that his approach is effective, is working and is dealing with the problems that fishermen all round our coasts face every day.
    8.22 pm
    Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and of my right hon. Friend the Minister about the Premier. All hon. Members—the hon. Lady knows this from our discussions with her and exchanges in the past 24 hours—are sensitive to what has happened. Our thoughts and prayers go to the families of those who were so tragically involved.
    Sadly, we in the north-east of Scotland are not strangers to tragedy, and that is true of fishing communities around the coasts of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the north-east of Scotland, we have also had the tragedies connected with the North sea oil industry. That underlines the fact that those who must battle with the elements for their livelihood do take special risks. Hon. Members are sensitive to those risks and join, regardless of party, in sympathy for those who have been involved in such accidents.
    I must confess that I thought that we were having a question time at the beginning of the debate, which I am afraid will limit the opportunities of some hon. Members. I shall therefore do my best not to detain the House for long.
    Although we welcome the explanations that my right hon. Friend the Minister always gives so lucidly on these occasions, none the less, we want the views of our parts of the United Kingdom taken into account at the negotiations. May I say quite unequivocally that I welcomed my right hon. Friend's robust defence of the United Kingdom's interests in the negotiations? Hon. Members will leave the debate heartened by what he said.
    I pay tribute to the constructive, thoughtful and helpful speech of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Many of the problems in fishing can be approached—I certainly welcomed this when I had responsibility for these matters—on a bipartisan basis, which, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged, strengthens the British negotiating position. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe certainly contributed to that.
    I acknowledge what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about the fishing industry: the year turned out better than it appeared it would at the beginning. On straight financial receipts for the industry, it does look better, but I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that the results were patchy. Many of the high earnings were in the early part of the year, when many boats could not go to sea. The limited number of boats that were able to do so had good returns, but when one considers the fleet as a whole,

    1183
    particularly the smaller classes of vessel, one realises that we cannot be complacent about the financial position of the industry. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider not only the overall position of the industry but the different sectors within it—where, unfortunately, the story is not always the same.
    As many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall deal only with a few specific points, the first of which is the diamond versus the square mesh net. I am delighted that we have a good debate going on this subject, because there is no doubt that we must avoid the indiscriminate slaughter of juvenile fish which occurs with the diamond mesh net. Hon. Members welcome any move towards adoption of a square mesh net, particularly in the cod end, and my right hon. Friend the Minister can rely on our wholehearted support.
    My only anxiety —this is looking backwards rather than forwards—is how slow we have been to follow this up and to develop it. I am afraid that there appears to have been reluctance in certain research establishments and elsewhere to follow this through vigorously. I make the plea that we do not necessarily wait until all our experiments are completed. Let us look also at experimental and practical experience in countries such as Canada. In the course of the year, I supplied my noble Friend Lord Sanderson, who was responsible for fisheries at the Scottish Office, with much evidence, particularly from Canada. I am glad to see that it has been acted on, but let us ensure that it is acted on quickly.
    I am not qualified to say which size of square mesh may be correct. All I can say is that I hope we reach a sensible compromise and that we avoid the indiscriminate slaughter of juvenile stocks, on which the future livelihood of our fishermen must depend.
    The 10-day rule for the limitation of fishery effort is ridiculous. It is arbitrary, it does not take account of practical conditions in the industry, and because larger vessels can choose their time at sea much more easily than other vessels, it will, if adopted, discriminate against smaller vessels in the fleet, which none of us wants. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that that rule is dropped.
    I turn to the negotiations with Norway about mackerel and herring. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister explain why the Commission recommended that the mackerel total allowable catch should be exceeded to accommodate Norway, but that the TACs for white fish recommended by scientists should be strictly complied with? That paradox should be explained. I cannot understand that proposal.
    Norway is to get 28,000 tonnes more mackerel from the western stocks and is to increase its share by 4 per cent. The United Kingdom will get only 8,000 additional tonnes out of the increase. I do not believe that the result of the negotiations is fair. It discriminates against our fishermen and does not make sense in terms of a consistent policy on TACs. The same applies to North sea herring stock. Although the Norwegian share of the TAC goes down from 29 per cent. to 25 per cent., 12,500 tonnes are to be transferred from the Community to Norway. That does not make sense. The Commission must be much more resolute in negotiations with Norway.
    1184
    I shall not go into the details of other TACs, because I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken all those points on board. The Hague preference was hard won. Much effort was needed to get it, and I can assure my right hon. Friend of that from first-hand experience. I should hate it to be diminished in any way. I was delighted by my right hon. Friend's clear declaration. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will support him in defending it.
    Structure is the most important issue. I know that my right hon. Friend will not like what I have to say, because he knows my views. My thoughts are perhaps closer to those of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe than to those of my right hon. Friend. We need a much more rigorous approach to the question of the size of the fleet and of the fishing effort. I for one would have adopted a much more rigorous licensing system than the one that the Government introduced. If we have a licensing system, it must be rigorous. I welcome the changes this year, because they are an improvement in the right direction, but we should have started with a much tighter system. That was always my belief, but, alas, a general election and a change of Government position meant that I could not follow it through.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister has certain reservations about a decommissioning scheme, and he expressed them strongly this evening. It can be argued that either a more rigorous licensing scheme or a decommissioning scheme is highly interventionist, and I accept that. After all, as my right hon. Friend admitted, we are dealing with a hunting industry—moreover, one in which the resource being hunted is limited. As surely as night follows day, there must be regulation. We already have intervention. I cannot understand the reluctance to have the slightly greater degree of intervention that will be much more effective in bringing the technical and physical resources used to hunt fish more closely into gear with fish resources.
    We must reduce the pressure on stocks. Although some of the measures that we have introduced are helpful, they will not bring that about in a major way. I cannot understand some of the arguments put by my right hon. Friend the Minister. Surely, if the capacity of the fishing fleet is reduced—either the more efficient or the less efficient part—the existing available catch is shared among fewer vessels and fewer fishermen and those remaining in the industry become much more viable. If, at the same time, we throw all our conservation measures overboard and decide to get rid of quotas, TACs and the rest, of course we will get more effort from the remaining capacity. But surely no one is talking about that. We keep our conservation measures, our mesh sizes for nets, our TACs and our quotas, but, by reducing capacity, we make sure that the income available to the industry is spread among fewer boats and fewer fishermen.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister has spoken from the basis of his experience with company fishing vessels at Humberside, which I believe, in the light of the Public Accounts Committee's report, has scarred him. Of course, those who manage company fleets will get rid of their least efficient vessels and fish with the more efficient remaining vessels. I believe that the scheme was badly managed.
    We can learn from the lessons of dealing with company fleets. But we are not talking so much about that now as about share fishermen. We are talking about a situation in which one family might own, at the most, two vessels.

    1185
    Those fishermen do not have a choice. A decommissioning scheme among the share section of the fleet would take away the vessel and the ownership, and that is that—those people cannot change from one vessel to another.
    Sir Michael Shaw: I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee which examined this matter. As I said in the previous fisheries debate, the report stated:
    "We note that member states were given options as to how the EC scheme for decommissioning grants should be applied but MAFF chose to introduce a regulatory approach with provision for the automatic payment of flat rate grants."
    Surely we should be thinking about more flexible systems, pinpointing grant where it is needed.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening, because he makes his point having examined this matter. The schemes could be refined to reduce the capacity of our fishing fleet, which would be a proper and sensible way to proceed.
    I hope that I have shown that some of the assumptions made by my right hon. Friend the Minister are wrong. They should be challenged, and I certainly challenge them. I beg my right hon. Friend to consider this matter again and not to be prejudiced because of experience of a previous scheme—that can be changed. I ask him to consider the issue in the context of the inshore fleet and of the share fishermen, because they are different.
    Last but not least, I believe that the industry is prepared to discuss how to co-operate in devising and operating such a scheme. The industry has offered to do that. It would be wrong if the Minister did not take up those offers and did not move forward on the issue of decommissioning in co-operation with the industry. That is vital. That matter must be dealt with as part of our fisheries policy.
    8.38 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) because I agree with nearly everything that he said. I demur on his point about the Hague preference which, as far as Grimsby is concerned, is the Hague handicap because we do not get it. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a passionate and strong invocation of a need which has been put to Ministers by hon. Members on both sides of the House—to get something done about a decommissioning scheme. The debates fall into a comon pattern, and that demand comes across strongly. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman's strong statement.
    The prospects foretold by the documents are gloomy. We are in a conservation crisis. If the cuts in TACs are implemented in full—for instance, 15 per cent. for North sea cod—it will be disastrous for the industry and for Grimsby. We are a cod port. We are also a fishing centre, a market centre and a processing centre. There are nine jobs on land for every one job at sea and those jobs depend on the catches made at sea. If there is a cut in the catch, it has a knock-on effect on the whole industry—on the processing side and on the market through which a high proportion of the fish comes. It is the best market in. the country and there is a distribution system which, in turn, supports the market. Those elements of the industry are now nearing the limit of viability. Any cut in catches, in throughput in the market and in what goes into the distribution system would have a disastrous and
    1186
    disproportionate effect on the industry. It would endanger the existence of the distribution system and undermine the market that is crucial to the distribution and demand for fish throughout the country. We are in a crucial situation which could have dire effects for Grimsby.
    It is important to put to Ministers the concern that we all feel so strongly and passionately. I am amazed that, after the strong and passionate pleas for a decommissioning scheme that were made in each previous fishing debate, Ministers remain impervious to the argument. The Minister's defence of his failure to provide a decommissioning scheme was casuistry which might go down well in Convocation, for which it is better designed, but which cuts no ice with the fishermen because it defies common sense. If the Government were to provide a decommissioning scheme to cut the amount of effort, they would automatically provide for more effective and better conservation. That is essential.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister's case was that if one reduced the size of the fleet, there would be greater fishing effort and damage to conservation. By that token, the way in which he should help to reduce fishing effort is to have grants for new-built boats to increase the size of the fleet. It does not add up.
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If it is reduced to that ludicrous dimension, the illogicality of the Minister's argument becomes clear. It is wrong that, although on each occasion we have transmitted to him the strong demand of the industry, he has remained immune to the argument. It is also bad for our negotiating position and for the way in which the conservation measures apply to the industry. It would be ludicrous if the burden of the measures suggested by the Commission, such as the proposal for 10 consecutive closed days which would be disastrous for the industry, fell disproportionately on this country because we were lagging behind through our failure to provide a decommissioning scheme.
    The Commission classifies nations participating in the common fisheries policy according to their compliance with the multi-annual guidance programme targets. Countries are classified from A to E. On that classification, we are E. Why is that? The reason is that we fail so disastrously to comply with the targets. For a long period now it has been envisaged that there should be a reduction of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum, so there should be a gradual reduction in effort. When we had a decommissioning scheme, we complied with that reduction of effort and the scheme got us within the targets. Since then, we have fallen behind. For various reasons, some of which are beyond the Minister's control—the number of quota hoppers has added to the pressures—we are 25 per cent. astray from our target.
    We are the worst case in Europe. Even Spain, whose behaviour is monstrous in many respects and of whose approach I am a constant critic, is classified as D, whereas we are classified as E. Denmark, which has a good decommissioning scheme that works well and has substantially reduced the effort in a rational and predictable way, is classified as A. That puts us in a difficult position. It leads to the disproportionate application of conservation measures to this country and it isolates us from the concerted approach that fishing nations could take. Denmark may want to isolate us and

    1187
    place the main burden of its criticism of demand on this country because Ministers have left us exposed by their failure to introduce a proper decommissioning scheme.
    This is not a question merely of the casuistry that the Minister invoked. A vital national interest is being set back by a total failure to listen to the industry and by Ministers' incompetence in administering the previous scheme.
    Ministers have also brought an undesirable fate to the industry through their attitude to the type of nets used. That point has been made by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside and has been hammered home in each previous debate. There have been discussions about square mesh nets and their advantage over diamond mesh, which pulls out of shape. However, it is important that the work on square mesh panels should not be held back. There is a suspicion that the approach of the Ministry and of some research institutions that are prejudiced about square mesh panels has held back the argument. The Government have failed to advance research in this area, so we do not know exactly what the consequences are.
    I have seen research that suggests that square mesh panels may have real benefits in catching bigger and, therefore, more marketable and better fish. I have also heard fishermen argue that that does not work with cod. They argue that as cod are lazy fish, they go into the net and do not try to get out. I cannot tell the truth of those arguments. I feel instinctively, from what I have read about square mesh panels, that they would give an enormous advantage, which we should be pursuing. It is the Government's responsibility to provide the documentation and the research to tell us. We need a clear argument to put before the Commission so that we do not have something imposed on us. We should put our argument on the advantages to the Commission and we should impose it on our industry so that we are in advance of the conservation game and not lagging plaintively behind, arguing among ourselves about 90 mm, 120 mm, 110 mm, or 100 mm mesh size, which the Government are secretly urging in the negotiations.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The hon. Gentleman is doing less than justice to the work of British fishermen and of the Ministry. We have led research in the matter, but it has not been accepted in the Community. All the proposals put forward have a combination of diamond mesh and square mesh; the argument is whether it should be compulsory or voluntary. We believe that to get other countries to accept it, we should start with an optional approach on size. There is a genuine argument there. British fishermen have said that they want to have the option only of 80 mm square panels and a 90 mm mesh and that they want to leave the rest as it is. Entirely legally, a 90 mm square mesh panel could be introduced tomorrow morning. We must try to achieve an arrangement in the Community that will not only bring a positive gain in the conservation of fish, but will conserve the livelihood of fishermen.
    The Commission's proposals will not achieve that aim. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that the status quo is far too wasteful, so we must agree on a formula between the two. What the fishermen
    1188
    have asked us to negotiate is almost impossible. We must find a middle way. We are in the lead on this and we are recognised as being in the lead.
    Mr. Mitchell: I agree with the Minister that we should make a clear decision. However, that decision could have been made some time ago as the arguments have been clear for a long time. It is ludicrous that we are arguing and bickering at this stage of the process when we could have anticipated events.
    The Minister mentioned the research done by the industry. It is wrong that the onus of research should be placed on organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and on the industry itself. It should have been done at Ministry level over a period so that we could now see the advantages, impose our proposals and have a clear case. A decision is needed. We do not need endless arguments about net size or about top and bottom panels. We need to be able to say something definite, so a decision must be taken. That is where the Government have delayed and let the industry down.
    As I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall turn now to my main points. From a Grimsby point of view, it is absolutely vital that the Minister resists the reduction in TACs of cod. If they are cut from 105,000 tonnes to the proposed 90,000 tonnes, it will mean the immediate invocation of the Hague preference. That would be disastrous for Grimsby and we must be safeguarded from it. It would mean that fish was effectively being taken away from us and we would be put at a disadvantage compared with the ports along the arbitrary line that the Minister defined, beginning at Flamborough head, which bears no relation to the communities which depend on Grimsby's fishing and which should be allowed to participate in the debate if the Hague preference is to be invoked. The Minister should not allow the invocation of the Hague preference because it would not only be unfair to Grimsby; it would be disastrous.
    The improvement in catches given to this country under the CAP was compensation for the fishing effort that was lost in Iceland. That fishing effort was conducted by vessels from Humberside. Since then, the increased catch has been taken mainly by Scottish vessels, which have been able to establish an historic track record, which Humberside does not have. However, Scotland has other advantages, such as the 12-mile limit. It would be absolutely wrong if we were now asked to suffer, through the Hague preference, to compensate Scottish vessels. It would be wrong because of Grimsby's good conservation record. We use 120 and 110 mm mesh, which is a good efficient method of conservation. Grimsby is a cod port which catches good, large, prime fish.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Mitchell: I was involved in this argument with the hon. Gentleman in our previous debate on this and I shall not get bogged down again.
    We are a conservation-proud and conservation-conscious port. Moreover, unlike the Scottish industry, we pace our catches and quotas properly and fairly throughout the year. Our fishermen do not go out to grab as much as possible, thus producing the danger of a closure simply because of greed and grabbing too early in the year. Our conservation record should be recognised. There

    1189
    should not be discrimination against Grimsby, such as the Hague preference would produce. We are a very good conservation port.
    If conservation measures are introduced, such as the proposed 10 consecutive days in port, they should be applied on an individual track record basis, not on a blanket basis throughout the industry. An allocation allowance must be made for the mesh size that is used so that those vessels using the larger mesh size, such as those from Grimsby, are not faced with the same requirement for 10 closed consecutive days which those without the same conservation record are now to face. If that is applied to the main species, such as cod, haddock and whiling, it should exclude saithe and plaice. We need a better deal for saithe especially in relation to Norway. Ministers have neglected to take the opportunity of the improvement in those stocks in 1991. Although more will be available next year, Ministers have not achieved sufficient benefit for this country.
    I remember the contempt with which we viewed horse mackerel when John Silkin came back to the House to announce that we had been given the consolation prize of an increase in the horse mackerel quota in 1978. That fish is now used for human consumption. It is therefore wrong that we should have national quotas out of which, because of their industrial fishing, the Danes will do well. That fish should be developed as a stock for human consumption.
    My final point relates to discards, which are a real conservation problem. The Minister should consider seriously how to deal with this. The Scottish industry's discard record is appalling. One hears instances of vessels catching a number of boxes, but then seeing and catching a large amount of better fish and chucking the earlier inadequate fish over the side, thus adding to the discard problem. It is essential that we do something about discards. Given that discards are low in Grimsby, I suggest that all the fish that is caught should be returned and registered to quota. That would impose an effective discipline on the industry and would help us to tackle a problem that cannot be allowed to continue in such a way.
    In conclusion, the prospects are poor. We need proper conservation. We need a decommissioning scheme and we need an orderly rundown in the industry in the face of the dire prospects if we are to survive in a coherent and concentrated form to inherit the better opportunties that will lie ahead.
    8.55 pm
    Mr. David Harris: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in expressing sympathy, through the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), to her constituents who have lost relations in the dreadful tragedy. In the years that I have been a Member of the House, it has all too frequently been my sad duty to visit the relatives of fishermen who have been drowned. Indeed, I did so this summer. We all know the anguish that those relations go through, especially when the bodies have not been recovered from the sea. That is always an awful additional agony in such times of sadness.
    In that connection, I refer to the work of an organisation that is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the House, the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen. I always like to visit fishermen's relations in the company of the Mission superintendent. Those of us who represent
    1190
    fishing constituencies know the tremendous work that that organisation does quietly and behind the scenes, especially in moments of tragedy, such as the one we mark tonight.
    I make no apology for returning to an issue which has not featured greatly in the debate, although it was mentioned briefly by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I refer to the Spanish threat. All our fishermen face the possibility of the dreaded wretched quota-hoppers from Spain. We all dread the possibility that boats that are Spanish to all intents and purposes will start to come back—and some have already done so because of court rulings—in big numbers as a result of the case that starts in the European Court of Justice on 17 January.
    I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench for all the work that they have done on this issue. The trouble is that the decisions so often lie with the Commission. Perhaps it is no coincidence —I make no point about it—that the Commissioner is a Spaniard. However, the outcome also lies with the decisions of the courts, both the European Court and our own. The sad fact is that we have so far lost several of the interim cases before the major case begins on 17 January. I hold firmly to the view that, whatever happens, this country and this Government must obey the rulings of the courts. I say that without equivocation, in whatever court the ruling is made.
    Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), were good enough to meet a delegation of leaders of Cornish fishermen, which I accompanied, to talk about foreign quota-hoppers. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend agree that there was some frank talking at that meeting. The Cornish fishermen are in the front line in facing the threat. What we cannot understand is how on earth we can have a common fisheries policy based on national quotas while foreign boats can fish against our quotas because of an accident of history and through several devices.
    The essence of tonight's debate has been the pressure on our quotas. It is ludicrous and it drives a coach and horses through the common fisheries policy that foreign boats can fish against our quotas. I am afraid that if the vessels from Spain return to our waters and fish against our quotas in the numbers in which they did in the past, our industry, particularly in the south-west, will be devastated.
    The pressure on quotas is already enormous. Yet the Commission says that foreign boats should be allowed to fish as though they were British boats, thereby devastating the British industry. That just does not make sense and Cornish fishermen in particular have every justification for being angry and bitter. Their livelihood is being threatened.
    I pay tribute to the work done by the Government on quota-hoppers. I am delighted that the Solicitor-General himself will put the British case when the case begins in Luxembourg on 17 January. Quota-hopping by foreign boats is the greatest threat to our industry, but it takes place against the background of pressure on so many quotas—not least the pressure on quotas in the channel and the western approaches.
    The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, was good enough to refer to the cuts in some quotas I reinforce what he said. I agreed with much of his speech.

    1191
    If the Commission's proposals are implemented, the cuts that will be made in area VII—the waters which mainly affect the south-west—for plaice and sole will be enormous. In area Vile, part of the channel, we could face a cut in quota of almost 40 per cent. for sole. The combined effect of cuts in British total allowable catches —I should use that phrase, rather than the word quota —for plaice and sole in area VII could result in a loss of earnings of £6 million for sole and £12 million for plaice. That is big money by anyone's reckoning. Some of that could be offset by swaps with other countries and I hope that that would be the case.
    In that connection—the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe drew attention to this—in certain areas it would be safe to increase the TAC and the quotas. I refer in particular to areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk for sole. That would make a great difference and would help offset the difficulties which otherwise will undoubtedly face our fishermen.
    Lastly—I, too, wish to be brief—I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening remarks on deliberate misreporting. "Deliberate misreporting" is an euphemism. I have another word for it which I used in the previous debate on the matter. It is "cheating". In that debate about one month ago I said some harsh things about some Scottish fishermen. Those remarks have not been rebutted and I do not believe that they can be.
    I wish to add to what I said and I do not do so with any sense of glee or pleasure. At my meeting with Ministers yesterday, certain information was given to them which had already been given to officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about a Scottish boat which landed its catch in Peterhead on 3 December. I am told that that catch was recorded as having been caught in area VII —the area of sea off south-west Ireland. It is alleged—I do not have the proof—that the catch was made some 140 miles north-east of Peterhead. I am deliberately not mentioning the boat's name because it would be unfair and irresponsible to do so under privilege when the Ministry's officials and Ministers have been given it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State for Scotland and ask him to establish where those fish were caught.
    Mr. Salmond: I have told the hon. Gentleman previously that Members who represent fishing constituencies should not spend their time in debates attacking other fishing constituencies. If he has evidence, he should forward it to the appropriate authorities. Does he realise that the whole fishing industry is awash with rumours? Trawlers from the south-west of England have been spending their time fishing in the English channel and reporting that they have been on the Irish sea. Anyone can make allegations. Has the hon. Gentleman investigated those allegations or done anything about them? Is he even aware of them?
    Mr. Harris: I have done precisely what the hon. Gentleman urges. I know that the information has been made available to officials and Ministers. [Interruption.] Tonight I am asking for an assurance that that information is being fully investigated with the owners and operators of that particular boat.
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is showing his ignorance of the law.
    Mr. Harris: Hon. Gentlemen are getting touchy about the subject and I can understand why.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman has any information of that kind, he should direct it to the office of the procurator fiscal at Peterhead. If the law has been broken, it is not for those sitting on the Treasury Bench to seek to enforce it, but for the appropriate authority in Scotland.
    Mr. Harris: The information has been relayed to the Ministry and, I believe, to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland because the licence for area VIIk under which the boat operated was issued, not by the procurator fiscal, but by DAFS. Therefore, DAFS has a responsibility for ensuring that the fish were caught in that area. Unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not a lawyer, but that is why the Ministry and the Department have a direct responsibility to get to the bottom of the matter.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be most unfortunate if this were presented as a Scotland-England issue? Does he accept that tonight I was speaking to fishermen's representatives from the west coast of Scotland who were anxious that precisely the same point should be made in east-west terms? I hope that every hon. Member and every party will unconditionally condemn misreporting and non-reporting.
    Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and hon. Members who are protesting and seem to be sensitive on this issue will remember that a month ago when I raised similar cases I had the support not just of Labour Members but of a Northern Ireland Member who virtually repeated word for word the allegation that I have made.
    There has undoubtedly been cheating on a massive scale. The trouble is that this is a double-edged knife. On the one hand, it exhausts more quickly quotas which would normally be fished by fishermen from the south-west and other parts of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, as my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, unless remedial steps are taken against cheating, fishermen who are cheating are building up an unfair track record for the future.
    With respect to hon. Members, this is not just a matter for prosecution, but one of direct concern for the fishing departments of MAFF, DAFS and Northern Ireland. For that reason, I welcome what my right hon. Friend said. I have confidence that he will ensure that the practice of misreporting is brought to an end rapidly.
    9.9 pm
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I beg to move, in line 11, to leave out from "and" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "demands that the Government now display some commitment to this vital resource industry and pursue a more vigorous policy in the fisheries negotiations by insisting on implementation of the technical conservation measures on square mesh panels agreed by fishermen and supported by sea trials, rejecting the discriminatory and unworkable proposals on limitation of effort proposed by the EC Commission, moving away from the restriction of catches for human

    1193
    consumption to the elimination of industrial fishing, and recognising that the fishing industry is entitled to the structural support enjoyed by virtually every other fleet in Europe.".
    This debate takes place against the background of the loss of the Premier. That loss is relevant to the debate because all hon. Members should be reminded of the enormous dangers that fishermen face every time they go to sea. It also places an obligation on all of us to do whatever we can to relieve at least the economic pressures on the industry.
    I was disturbed at some of the remarks of the Minister, who seemed to adopt a relatively complacent attitude to the extent of the financial problems of the fishing industry. If we had net income figures for the fishing industry, in the same way as we have for farming, they would show an altogether different picture from that of the crude revenue base on which the Minister is proceeding. Costs in the industry have escalated dramatically as a result of high interest payments and the cost of capital equipment —boats and gear. Recently fuel costs have more than doubled. At this time of year boats have to go further afield to fish and those fuel charges become an ever-increasing element of overall costs.
    In the past year the economic crisis facing the industry has not lessened. It has been transported onshore and its impact is being felt through high prices in the processing sector. That has had an effect on the processing companies and their workers, many of whom earn under £100 a week. In my constituency many of those workers have not received any wage increase this year. If Ministers swapped places with fish processing workers they would realise that there is a crisis in the fishing industry and they would appreciate the economic conditions that those people face. Let us not be complacent about the extent of the financial problems.
    In the light of the two fishing tragedies of recent weeks, it would be inconceivable if there was any support in the House for a system of effort limitation as it would inevitably increase the dangers faced by fishermen. A 10 consecutive day system would do just that because if boats were in port for 10 fine days there would be a greater pressure to go to sea for the remaining 20 days of the month, regardless of the weather conditions. Some people may believe that effort limitation is a valid proposal, but it would he wrong for the House to support it in this form.
    Given the Minister's well-known religious interests, I hope that he understands that the proposal would trespass on the religious convictions of those who will not go to sea on Sunday. It would intefere with the fishing pattern that has been established by many of my constituents over many generations. I hope that that will be borne in mind by the Government.
    We are all committed to do whatever we can to decrease the inevitable dangers faced by fishermen. At the moment pelagic species must be landed at Ullapool and I am aware of two fully laden boats that had to turn back front that port because of adverse weather conditions. I hope that Ministers will bear it in mind that if a more flexible policy was introduced for the pelagic sector it might make matters safer for fishermen.
    Boats from Fraserburgh, Peterhead and elsewhere in my constituency have probably spent the past three days sheltering near Orkney against the adverse weather. If circumstances changed and they had to do 10 consecutive days—if they had overstayed their time at sea and were
    1194
    going into their compulsory lay-up period—they would now be faced with the prospect, having run the risk of being at sea, of having to sail directly back to their home ports to be able to start their 10 consecutive days at home. That is not a workable system and I do not believe that it will be accepted by the industry. I hope that it will be rejected out of hand in the negotiations in the Community later in the week.
    I was in some confusion during the Minister's speech to know whether he was attacking the amendment because he disagreed with it or whether—as seemed to be the case later in his speech —he was attacking it because he agreed with it. He seemed to advance a bizarre series of arguments. I took comfort from that because I believe that fundamentally he could not see anything wrong with the amendment as he tried to resist it.
    I will deal with the points made in the amendment so that the Minister appreciates fully what we are getting at. I have dealt with limitation of effort. Next, we are arguing for technical measures. We are on the brink of an enormous step forward in the fishing industry. The proposal for the 90 mm mesh size, with the 80 mm square mesh panel above the cod end, is greeted enthusiastically by the fishermen. It has been tested in sea trials and, as the Government are aware, the results have been dramatic in terms of discards and allowing smaller, immature fish to escape alive. There has been a 31 per cent. increase in the escape of haddock and a 46 per cent. increase in the escape of whiting. There is substantial evidence to show that that proposal would bring about what we all want—a reduction in the number of fish discarded dead into the sea. It would allow small, immature fish a chance to escape alive and in good condition. We are on the brink of a major breakthrough.
    That is why it would be disappointing if the Government were about to retreat from that proposal, which is backed by scientific evidence and which Ministers have told me privately they support. They accept that it is the best way technically to manage mixed fishing in the North sea. It would be disappointing if that opportunity were lost in some fudged compromise involving the ridiculous proposal of 120 mm that has come from the European Commission.
    Mr. Curry: Perhaps I might spell out the position for the hon. Gentleman; I do not want to polemicise it. We understand that the industry would prefer a 90 mm diamond with an 80 mm square panel. I tried to obtain that at the previous Fisheries Council meeting, but there was no support for it. Nor was there support for the Marin proposal. That is dead in the water, and will remain so. The Commission is now arguing for a 110 mm mesh and it will be difficult to head off a majority on that.
    I will obtain the best possible deal for the fishing industry, and I wish the House to be clear about the position because I do not want to deceive anybody. The proposal that the fishermen endorse is regarded as very minimalist, and I believe that it would be difficult to obtain. Nothing stops them putting a 90 mm square panel in the existing mesh, and of course the higher one goes the better the spin-off. There is a problem over livelihood—I recognise that dilemma—and it must be dealt with.
    Mr. Salmond: That intervention suggests that the Government are backing off the 90–80 formulation which has been greeted with enthusiasm by the industry. The

    1195
    great advantage of having a conservation measure that is backed by the industry is that it has the best possible chance of being put into practice. That is what we are on the threshold of achieving, but the Government seem to be backing off.
    I understand what the Minister said about resistance among other Community members, but if he were more amenable to structural policies and a decommissioning scheme all sorts of things would become possible in the fishery negotiations. If the Minister and the Government negotiators continue to be obdurate, it is hardly surprising that they get no sympathy from other European delegates when it comes to negotiating over technical measures.
    Earlier, the Minister said that he thought that the policy of low quotas had been relatively successful. I think that the policy has failed. Setting ever-lower quotas means that the industry ends up chasing its tail. Lower and lower quotas cannot work because we are setting single species quotas in a mixed fishery, so it is inevitable that one species of fish will run out before the quota of another runs out. That means that there are bound to be discards.
    I know that the public finds this difficult to understand, but it is absolutely legal to discard dead fish in the North sea and it is illegal to land those fish once they have been caught. It is ridiculous, but that is the inevitable result of the present quotas. They cannot work because of their vulnerability to discarding, which is the real enemy of fishermen, of conservation and of progress in policy in the future.
    I hope that Ministers will accept that the emphasis in fisheries policy must move to technical conservation measures, when they are established; but I also hope that they will agree that it is idiotic and obscene to set quota levels for fish for human consumption so low when there has been an increase in industrial fishing in the North sea. The Minister told us that he had opposed industrial fishing for a long time, so I was moved to check some statistics to see what had been the impact of his opposition on industrial catch levels in the North sea.
    My statistics, for estimated trawl fishery landings from the North sea, are from the past three years and are taken from a parliamentary reply by the present Secretary of State for Scotland on 16 July this year. In 1987, 1,106,000 tonnes of industrial fishery was landed from the North sea alone. In 1988, the figure was 1,349,000 tonnes, and in 1989, 1,483,000 tonnes—mostly, as we all know, landed by Danish and Dutch fleets. So in the very years when increased pressure has been put on fisheries for human consumption, for which the quotas have been dramatically lowered, industrial fishing in the North sea has increased. If that is the result of the Minister's trenchant opposition to industrial fishing, I should have hated to see what would have happened had he not entered negotiations arguing against it.
    We know from previous fishing debates that industrial fishing has never been discussed as a specific policy item at Council meetings. When will this obscenity be tackled? Millions of tonnes of small fish, pout and sand-eels, are taken from the North sea—the feed stock and foodstuff of a future fishery. Meanwhile, fish for human consumption is allowed to be taken only at levels so low as to be almost untenable.
    1196
    Our amendment refers to structural measures—not only to decommissioning but to temporary lay-up measures, of which some Community countries, particularly Spain, have taken advantage. In 1987, 1988 and 1989, 50 million, 30 million and 6 million ecu —I am not sure whether hard or not—have been spent on lay-up schemes and have mostly gone to Spain. Thirty-seven million ecu, 49 million ecu and 45 million ecu respectively for the same years have gone on decommissioning, mostly to the Danes and Dutch. That amounts to a total of £150 million in structural support over these three years, of which the United Kingdom's share has been zero because of the Government's obdurate opposition to structural measures.
    Regardless of the Minister's embarrassment at presiding over a failed decommissioning scheme six years ago, surely we cannot allow our fishing industry to face competition from other European fleets at such a massive and major disadvantage. By all means let us have a better decommissioning scheme than the one that sent many millions of pounds sailing up the Humber about six years ago. A common sense flexible scheme would allow some reduction in fishing capacity, some amelioration of the problem and progress towards meeting the guidance targets.
    Those are the three points in the amendment, and my hon. Friends and I will force the issue to a vote. However, having heard the explanation perhaps the Minister will accept our amendment. Failing that, and given the special characteristics of this industry, I am sure that the Minister understands that hon. Members from fishing constituencies must vigorously represent this industry. We inherited the cause in our constituencies. In the winding-up speech I should like to hear some concessions to the important, positive and constructive arguments that have been advanced on behalf of fishermen.
    9.26 pm
    Sir Michael Shaw: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that hon. Members who represent fishing ports strongly support their fishermen, who play an important part in their constituencies. Time is running short, so I shall be brief.
    Happily, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is back with us for the debate. I well remember when he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) presented an agreement to the House. That was a good agreement and greatly favoured our fishing industry. Ministers are doing a first-class job in Brussels on behalf of our people. Sometimes the results have not been what we would have wished, but we are fortunate to have such competent Ministers representing us in negotiations, which my fishermen are carefully following.
    Quotas have been lowered each year and are now at a critical level. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food assure us that any further reduction in the quotas would be kept to a minimum. That is right because we must look not only to the future of the fish but to the future of fishermen and their industry.
    Secondly, I was glad to hear about the positive conservation measures that have been taken by the industry. My fishermen have engaged in such experiments

    1197
    and I hope that their experience will be taken into account. The system of 10 consecutive days of non-fishing produces greater hardship for fishermen than the mathematical calculations suggest. Fishermen, and especially those who work on the north-east coast, have to contend with changeable and dangerous conditions and need to be able to time their fishing operations if they are to be successful. I hope that that will be taken fully into account in the negotiations. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, and I wish him well in the negotiations next week.
    9.29 pm
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I extend my condolences to the bereaved families of the Premier. All of us who have many close connections with the fishing industry, through either our constituencies or families, never become inured to sadness as each winter goes by and we lose a vessel, with the disappearance of a whole crew or a part crew, as the men are washed over the side. During the bitter winter months we have a constant concern for those who sail our seas to find a living. That feeling unites all of us in the House.
    When the Minister began his speech he properly paid tribute to those who have suffered. However, I regret that the memory of the combination of forces faded quickly from his mind, and when he reached the substance of his speech he appeared to have a complete lapse of memory. He seems to have forgotten that the Conservative party leadership has changed. Stridency and haranguing are out of the window. We are supposed to be having the quieter, caring approach nowadays. This criticism may appear trivial to some, but if, whenever a criticism is made or a doubt cast on something in the Minister's speech or in the technical papers, he regards that in a party political sense, he will do the fishing industry no good.
    I have taken part in these debates for almost 20 years, and it has long been the tradition to seek to send the Minister to the negotiations carrying the House with him, and the Minister has almost always sought that too. It has seldom been necessary to force Divisions. Ministers have usually taken the depth and strength of feeling in criticisms with them as a bargaining point on their side, instead of discounting them as if we did not care about what happens.
    I am always irritated when the Minister sits and gossips instead of listening to the debate. He should bear it in mind that we are trying to ensure that we obtain the best possible deal for our constituents and the industry. The Minister went too far when he said that we were trying to give the fishermen a soft option, trying to buy votes. That is an insult to all fishermen. Anyone who promised that quotas and TACs would be increased and that fishermen could catch all the fish that they liked would be laughed at. Anyone who thought that he could get a vote that way would be considered crazy and no one would vote for him.
    It is easy to try to make the soft option, but I think that I am speaking for most hon. Members when I say that the soft option has not been put. It has been hard work to get the fishing industry to come to terms with the problems of conservation and the amount of fish being taken out of the sea. What worries me is that we are told that we must accept the scientific advice, the reduction of quotas and TACs, but the problem is that that does not seem to be working. Each year, we find reduction after reduction. I
    1198
    am not suggesting that reductions should not be made, and they probably will have to be accepted, but there seems to be less concentration on the scientific reasons for the lowering of the age of the stocks, and we need to know more about that aspect.
    It is a bit much for the Minister to pray in aid scientific evidence in some regards, but then to acquiesce in respect of restrictions such as spending 10 consecutive days in port or on mesh sizes, when there is no scientific evidence for such measures. Nothing has been produced to show that 10 consecutive days of tie-up will work. It could be extremely dangerous to tackle the problem in that way. I am not persuaded that it is a good idea, and do not even understand how it would work. Would those 10 consecutive days run from the first of the month to the 10th of the month, or could people choose which 10 consecutive days they were? Will there have to be a 20-day gap between tie-up periods? That has not been explained, and we need to know.
    Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. and old Friend for allowing me to intervene. May we have confirmation that those 10 consecutive days will include Saturdays and Sundays, and that they will not be 10 consecutive working days at sea, including steaming days? Will the period in fact comprise six working days plus four weekend days?
    Mr. Hughes: Perhaps I should have asked my hon. Friend earlier whether weekends are included, and if there is to be some flexibility. I might have been given the right answer. We have not received an explanation from the Government.
    If scientific evidence is to be used for one argument, it should be used for the other. There is overwhelming scientific evidence against using a 120 mm mesh, and to show that the fishermen's proposals can work. The Minister must put all the scientific evidence to the Commission.
    I abhor cheating, as does every honest fisherman, I hope that there will be no division in the House, with people getting too touchy over allegations about Peterhead, Humberside or Cornwall fishermen. Such allegations should be done away with for ever. Fishing communities share tragedy, but when it comes to arguments about who does this or that, blame is always placed on fishermen who are 100, 200 or 300 miles away. We must stamp out cheating, and if we discover that our own constituents have been guilty of it, we must come down on them equally hard and not seek to defend them.
    The Minister must address the decommissioning issue, for it is not good enough for him to say, because his Department made a mess of the previous scheme, that it was taken to the cleaners or ripped off, or whatever other phrase he chooses—and that as a consequence, there must never be another decommissioning scheme. Instead, we should learn from the lessons of the past.
    One of the complaints that I received was that under the previous scheme fishermen did not receive a ha'penny. The Minister claims that the money goes back into the industry, but I do not think that that is true. It will probably go into the bankers' pockets, where it has always gone. It is problematical who will really benefit if the scheme is not properly worked out. However, if catching capacity is reduced in a strategic and planned way, that will help quota management. It must be done in that way.

    1199
    Fishermen do not like regulations or planning, but they are beginning to accept that they are necessary because otherwise their livelihoods will disappear. They like even less the threat of fleet restructuring and decommissioning, with boats going out of the fishing effort in a war of attrition and bankruptcy. When he was Chancellor, the Prime Minister said, "If it ain't hurting, it ain't working." I hope to goodness that people realise that that is not the way to treat the fishing industry. We want proper restructuring and proper assessment. I also hope that, although tonight we are primarily discussing TACs, the problems facing the processors on the land will not be forgotten.
    My final plea is for a day when we can discuss the industry properly, free from the pressures of time and without having to argue about TAC.
    9.40 pm
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Despite the robust comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, all the evidence available to me suggests that, for the south-west, the current fishing year has not been as good as 1989. Furthermore, if the Commission's proposals for TACs and quotas for 1991 were implemented in their existing form, there is no doubt that the south-west fishery would experience real problems, with adverse repercussions for the regional economy as well as for fishermen and ancillary activities.
    The problem does not end there, however. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, in a closely knit community there is an interrelationship between fishing and other economic activities. In the far south-west, there is an interplay between tourism and fishing. One of the reasons why people go on holiday to isolated peripheral parts of the United Kingdom such as Looe, Polperro and Fowey in my constituency is the fact that the harbours are alive. There is the movement of boats, the landing of fish, the auctioning and the mending of the nets, all of which are of great interest to the visitor. If fishing were taken away, those harbours would cease to be alive.
    I recognise the fundamental problems that face United Kingdom Ministers. As we all realise, fish stocks are declining; we have a surplus catching capacity, and we have to deal with overfishing in some areas. As a consequence, we must exercise restraint if we are to maintain effective conservation measures and safeguard the viability of our fishing industry.
    I have three detailed points to make about the effect that the draft proposals would have, if implemented, on Devon and Cornwall. The first relates to the TACs, and United Kingdom quotas in particular, for cod, whiting, plaice and sole. The sole quota in area Vile would be reduced by 44 per cent., and the plaice quota by 18 per cent. Although the figures do not seem high in terms of tonnages, I assure the Ministers that in financial terms they represent significant reductions in value, and thus in fishermen's incomes. The suggested reductions in the whiting and cod quotas are 29 per cent. and 19 per cent. respectively.
    I acknowledge that those figures are provisional; there will be negotiation at the Fisheries Council next week and there will be some room for manoeuvre in the context of
    1200
    quota swaps, particularly with the Dutch. Overall, however, the trend will be unfavourable if major modifications are not obtained.
    That brings me to my second point—the basis of the scientific assessments for the determination of TACs. These are based on limited analytical data that are susceptible to error and variable interpretation. I hope that where there is a variation in the scientific evidence, Ministers will argue for the higher parameter.
    In this debate last year I argued in support of greater flexibility in the application of quotas. Circumstances change during the course of any single fishing year. I believe that if there is ample scientific evidence and local knowledge to support an enhanced quota during the year, there should be a procedure that can be implemented without, in effect, having to renegotiate the TACs and quotas.
    In the context of conservation, I wish to mention mesh types and sizes. Many hon. Members have already referred to that. South-west fishermen have long advocated larger mesh sizes. The present situation is ludicrous as many small fish are caught and, subsequently, dumped. Small fish represent not only future fish stocks and the viability of the industry but the future livelihood of our fishermen.
    It would be remiss of me not to remind hon. Members and Ministers of the potential threat of competition from over 100 Spanish quota-hopping fishing vessels should the decision of the European Court go against the United Kingdom. That is a real worry to our local fishermen since the fish-catching capacity would be enhanced out of all proportion to the quantity of fish available in the south-west fishery. Such a development would have serious consequences for the south-west fishing industry.
    Looe is the principal fishing port in my constituency. It supports over 50 fishing vessels—a significant increase since 1980. In the past three years alone over £1 million has been invested in landing facilities, including a fish market and a packaging scheme. Larger sums have been invested in our fishing fleet. I want that momentum to be maintained. We look to our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to safeguard those interests in Brussels next week and in the wider European forum.
    9.47 pm
    Mr. James Wallace: Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, may I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, extend, through the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), our condolences to the families of those bereaved in the fishing tragedy yesterday? As many hon. Members have said, those of us who represent fishing constituencies know that the communities are brought together when tragedies such as this happen. I know that that will be the case in the fishing communities in my constituency. Today, we also remember the community in Carradale where my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has been with those who are burying their dead after the tragedy last month.
    This has been a vigorous debate, as it should be in the week before Ministers go to Brussels to negotiate what will effectively be the shape and structure of the fishing industry in 1991. I share the view of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) who expressed disappointment at the fact that because we were not going to line up neatly behind the Minister, he would automatically be offended and go on to a political attack. If some points

    1201
    seem to be uniting the Opposition and some of his hon. Friends—the eloquent and knowledgeable right. hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) shares some of the views expressed by Opposition Members—perhaps the Minister should take time to consider what we are saying. As representatives of constituencies with substantial fishing interests, we try to make it part of our business to find out what the fishermen are thinking and what their concerns are. The Minister should he in no doubt that the message that we are receiving from them is that they are not satisfied with the way in which things have been going or with some of the more controversial proposals on the table for discussion in Brussels next week.
    I shall try, as briefly as possible, to go through the points that arise from the total allowable catches. The first is the agreement that was initialled last week with Norway. Every year, the precise status of that agreement is raised. Every year, Norway tries to get more western mackerel, which appears to be conceded by the Commission, but not necessarily be member states. By the time that Ministers consider it at the Council of Ministers, it is virtually a fait accompli, and on that basis they must share out the remaining stocks.
    The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside made the important point that the scientific advice for North sea mackerel is that the catch should be nil. This year, the amount agreed for western mackerel is higher than the scientists' recommendation. The scientific advice has been ignored for political reasons. That should be borne in mind when Ministers use the phrase, "We must abide by the scientific advice", as a defence for other TACs.
    The one saving factor, as the Minister said, is the flexibility to take some of that western mackerel east of the 4 deg. west line. My understanding is that the Community and Norway have agreed to 60,000 tonnes being taken. Last year, although it was agreed with Norway, the Council of Ministers scaled it down. Does the Minister foresee that happening again? The pelagic fishermen in my constituency hope that as 60,000 tonnes has been agreed with Norway the Community will agree to it.
    On North sea cod and haddock TACs, I noted that the Minister said that, if necessary—it would appear necessary from the figures before us —the Government would invoke the Hague preference. If it is necessary to do so, they will have our support. Will it be possible to agree a TAC for North sea cod that makes it unnecessary to invoke the Hague preference? The industry feels that that would be a better way of proceeding.
    If my figures for east and west catches are right, there will be an 8 per cent. reduction in the quota for saithe. I am advised that the Norwegian effort in the fishing of saithe has been considerably reduced, and the possibility of our taking up the slack that the Norwegians have allowed us would be welcome, particularly to the industry in England.
    For the west coast, the Minister said that the Government would probably have to invoke the Hague preference for whiting and saithe. What is the position of the Hague preference with regard to haddock? In 1990, the west coast haddock TAC was 14,000 tonnes in area. VIa and 10,000 tonnnes in area VIb, making a total of 24,000 tonnes, but now the total for the two areas is down to 13,000 tonnes. In other words, 11,000 tonnes has been knocked off a TAC of 24,000 tonnes, which is a substantial amount. Given such variations, not least reductions,
    1202
    fishermen find it difficult to believe the scientific advice and wonder why it can be at one level in one year but so dramatically different the next.
    The debate on mesh sizes has flowed backwards and forwards. As the Minister well knows, the industry's preference is an 80 mm square mesh panel with a 90 mm diamond mesh. The industry was pleased that the 120 mm mesh size seemed to be well and truly ruled out; there was a broad range of opinion against that. We heard something which, until this evening, the industry had not heard directly from the Government: the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to say that it is unlikely that the British Government will be able to stand by a negotiating position of the 80 mm square panel and 90 mm diamond net. That must come as a great disappointment to the industry. It may feel that the Government have not been batting as hard on this wicket as they might have reasonably been expected to. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) put it well. Because the Government have been so reluctant to go down any road towards a structured policy introducing decommissioning, the Commission has to get back at British industry in some other way, so we have no friends when we want to put forward a proposal.
    By using videos and going on journeys, representatives of the industry have tried to show that this is a sensible conservation measure. I understand that it is easy in negotiations to compromise on size issues. But we are talking not just about size but about selectivity. Skippers such as Charlie Dawson, the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, and John Garrioch from my constituency have shown that their method is more effective in reducing discards. Hon. Members agree that that, perhaps more than anything else, must be achieved. It also retains more marketable fish. The Minister should not give up on that position. He appears already, before the negotiations, to have conceded. What has he been doing since last month to win round friends from other member states? Have representatives of other nations seen the videos and the evidence which our fishermen produced? There will be great disappointment if the pass is sold before Ministers reach Brussels.
    The proposal that fishermen should stay 10 consecutive days a month ashore is one of the main controversial issues of the debate. I asked the Minister what the Governmenl's position was, but his reply was not particularly clear. If I used the wrong terminology, I apologise, although I was not aware that I did. I was referring to part of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Moray and her hon. Friends with which the Minister was dealing at the time. The amendment criticised
    "unworkable proposals on the limitation of effort proposed by the EC Commission."
    That is what I thought the measure was. The Minister asked why an amendment to that effect should have to be tabled and said that he agreed. I asked him whether he opposed the idea of 10 consecutive days ashore, but did not receive a direct reply. The Minister owes it to the industry to say what the position will be. Is he in favour of the Commission proposal or not? I should willingly give way to him, but he does not seem to want to make the position clear. As hon. Members said, we are increasingly putting pressure on fishermen to fish when they would much rather stay ashore. This may not be the most sensitive of occasions on which to dwell on that point at length, but the House knows the issue.

    1203
    What thought has been given to the consequences for processors? Will the Government rely on the industry sorting itself out in some way to provide a steady flow of fish during the month, or will there be a glut in some parts of the month and a shortage in others, affecting the price received by those who land the fish?
    Not surprisingly, the subject of decommissioning has played a large part in the debate. Many people in the industry have told me and, no doubt, other hon. Members that they see the common fisheries policy as a whole. There are technical conservation measures in one part—a means of limiting the number of fish caught and efforts aimed at conservation. There is also a structures policy. The Government seem to adhere, no doubt rightly, to part of the policy but they totally ignore others. The United Kingdom's fishing industry has to suffer for their omissions.
    The Minister argued against decommissioning and told us repeatedly that the previous decommissioning scheme was roundly criticised by the Public Accounts Committee. I understand his sensitivity because he was then one of the junior Ministers responsible for devising the scheme. As the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), a member of the Public Accounts Committee, said, it did not rule out other effective decommissioning schemes.
    We then heard the argument that a decommissioning scheme would not be effective and that we could not target it. Other European countries manage to target it. In Europe, age, horse power and tonnage are relevant factors. The younger the vessel, the bigger the horse power and the bigger the capacity, the greater is the amount received for decommissioning. The Government have been so intransigent about decommissioning that they have never entered discussions with the industry to see whether there can be effective targeting of decommissioning. I urge them to rethink their position.
    We heard a novel point this evening. The Minister said that if we took some capacity out, other vessels would tend to fish harder, so no net benefit would acrue. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside dealt with that point exceptionally well. We are talking about —
    It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.
    Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates 1990–91 (Class IV, Vote 2).

    CLASS IV, VOTE 2
    Resolved,
    That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £14,304,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection and administration.
    MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of Estimates, &c.).

    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1990–91
    Resolved,
    That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £4,746,691,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for defence and civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 6 and 76 of Session 1990–91.

    ESTIMATES 1991–92 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    Resolved,
    That a sum not exceeding £63,981,165,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1992 as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of Session 1990–91.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr.Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. John Maples and Mr. David Lightbown.
    Mr. Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1991 and 1992: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14].

    Fisheries
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Wallace: I will continue after that commercial break, Mr. Speaker.
    As I was saying, it does not follow that if one takes some boats out of the fleet, other boats would automatically make up the difference. As the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said, no one is proposing a decommissioning scheme while abandoning all other means of conservation. We are striving for better management of the relatively smaller stocks that are available. That might mean that some vessels, boat owners and crews will be able to sustain a better livelihood after decommissioning than is the case at present. There is no doubt that, at present, too much capacity is chasing fewer and fewer stocks.
    It seems that bankruptcy is the Government's only instrument for trying to reduce the capacity of the fleet. Aggregation, to which my fishermen do not object, does not appear to have made a great impact on the problem. The Government should be in no doubt that, for those of us who represent fishing constituencies, bankruptcy is not an acceptable instrument of policy.
    The Minister said, rightly, that we want a policy that will ensure that there are fish to be caught in the seas not only next year, but for many years to come. However, it is also important to ensure that there are still fishing communities and fishermen who are able to go out to sea to seek those stocks.
    10.3 pm
    Mr. Frank Doran: May I add my condolences to those hon. Members who represent constituencies that have lost fishermen in the past few weeks? It shows the high price that is paid by our fishing communities.
    At one time, my constituency was a strong fishing community and experienced similar losses, but its main importance now is as a fish market and as the centre for Scotland's fish processing trade. It is one of the United Kingdom's leading fish processing centres. It is important to consider the consequences of the decisions that are being discussed in terms of the fish processing industry because those consequences are not limited to the catches only. Fish processors deserve our attention.
    First, however, I should like to follow the point that was made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and to refer to the Minister's attitude to the debate. I was a wee bit disappointed that he did not follow the precedent that he set last year in his first year at the Dispatch Box on this matter. Before that debate, he called all hon Members who represent fishing constituencies to a private meeting at which he explained the Government's position on various aspects of the debate. We had a worthwhile and useful discussion beforehand. That helped to bring people together, which I believe is what the Minister intended. Today, however, he is taking a much more confrontational line, which is a matter of some regret, certainly to Opposition Members.
    At the beginning of this year, 5,200 people in the north-east of Scotland worked in the fish processing
    1206
    industry. During the past year, we have lost 750 jobs and 14 firms have closed. We are now down to 4,500 employees.
    Obviously, the fish processing industry depends on the fish catchers providing the supplies. I must express my extreme concern about the way in which the 10-days-permonth compulsory lay-off will affect the fish processors. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also referred to this point. I am not clear about whether the compulsory lay-off is to be across the board, whether there is to be no fishing on particular days or whether the restriction will be applied to individual ports. A daily intake of fish is absolutely necessary not only to my consituents who work in the fish processing industry, but to the consumer. It is crucial that that point is addressed and that we know exactly where we are.
    It is worth considering what the fish processing industry —certainly in my constituency—has had to cope with in the past few years. I got some figures today which show that, in 1988, fish processors in the United Kingdom had access to 50,000 boxes of fish per week. In 1989, with the reduction in the quota, that had reduced to 22,000 boxes per week and had reduced again last year to 14,000 boxes. We are looking at further cuts this year.
    The industry has been encouraged to change dramatically. In 1992, we are expecting new food hygiene and food handling regulations, which will be imposed on a Europewide basis. A lot of work is being done by the industry—I know, because I meet the fish processors in my constituency—to ensure that it can comply with the regulations in 1992. However, when the processors are faced with a reduction in their basic raw material, it is difficult for them to make the planned investment that is necessary if they are to meet and to cope with the regulations and, at the same time, continue to provide the high quality of fish that the consumer is entitled to expect.
    Fish processors have another problem. All sorts of rumours are circulating about how the regulations will be imposed. I spoke today to Scottish fish merchants and processors; it is clear that they are uncertain about the requirements that will be imposed upon them. It has been suggested that there may be a phasing-in period in some areas. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State for Scotland could clarify that matter, because we need to know whether the new food hygiene regulations —I know that they are not before the House—are to be imposed with immediate effect on 1 January 1993, or whether there will be a phasing-in period so that people such as my constituents can prepare and adjust much more slowly.
    The best processors—those who take the most businesslike attitude and those who care most about their product —are planning their investment now for 1 January 1993. They are worried that they will be left behind. Those who are slower to invest and those who wait to see how the regulations will affect them will steal quite a march on those who care and take the trouble to make that investment.
    The fish processing industry faces serious problems and we do not want Government indecision on them on top of that. I would appreciate it if the Minister would clarify the point about investment. Investment in the fish processing industry is a crucial question which must be addressed.
    We heard a great deal from the Minister tonight about the extra revenue which fish catchers have enjoyed this year. Of course, when there is much less fish on the market, the price goes up. That has its consequences on the fish

    1207
    processors. Prices at the quayside in the north-east of Scotland have increased by some 33 per cent. this year. That is 33 per cent. extra money which the fish processors have to find. Their cash flow is much more restricted than that in most other industries, but the retail price for fish once it is processed has increased by only 14 per cent., so fish processors are living within much tighter margins and are suffering seriously.
    I am aware that the Scottish fish processors—the merchants—approached the Minister with a plea for assistance in adapting to the imposition of the new food hygiene regulations. The industry wants to improve and modernise and to have facilities which are as up to date, clean and hygienic as possible, but in these times it is difficult for them to make the adjustment. They applied for assistance and went to see the Minister, but they were rebuffed. The attitude taken was the same as that taken by the Minister today on decommissioning.
    Some fundamental questions need to be asked about the Government's attitude. Fish is a food. It is a healthy food and one which people want to buy. People are encouraged to consume it. We should do everything possible to encourage fish consumption, yet it strikes me that exactly the opposite is happening. The price of fish in the supermarkets has increased dramatically. It is now almost as expensive as the best steak. I find that difficult to reconcile with the attitude of the Government when they wear another hat. Through the Department of Health and the Home and Health Department in Scotland, they encourage healthy eating. Poorer families certainly cannot afford to buy fish fresh from the fishmongers or the supermarket. That has happened simply because of the Government's lack of planning and their failure to make proper arrangements to ensure that the market is supported in exactly the same way as the food industry.
    Fishermen like to contrast their position with that of the farmers, and they are right. Farmers are encouraged and subsidised to produce, because their product is seen as absolutely essential to the well-being of the nation. We cannot afford to go into too much deficit in food production. I cannot understand why fishermen are not treated in the same way.
    We have surpluses in beef, milk and grain. I cannot understand why farmers are given the benefit of buy-in and set-aside schemes to encourage the removal of large acreages from production when fishermen do not benefit from such schemes. In the same way, we have argued tonight that vessels should be removed from fish catching. The analogies are too good to Miss for the fishermen, and I sympathise with them. I do not understand why the Minister refuses to acknowledge the points made by not only Opposition but Conservative Members. They are genuine points, which reflect the genuine anxieties of our constituents.
    It does the Minister no credit to hark back to previous bad experiences. If the Government got it wrong in the past, surely they can learn from their experiences and work a little harder to get it right now. It is clear that the industry needs the Government's support, as does the country if it is to enjoy access to fish as a staple part of its diet.
    When fish processors and catchers talk to me about decommissioning and financial support, they point out
    1208
    that they now operate in a wholly regulated market. There is no free market except for the price of the product and for the financial assistance which is denied to them. There is licensing of boats, there are quotas and now they face the imposition of severe food and hygiene regulations. The fishermen, fish catchers and processors are given no compensation for that totally regulated market. That cannot go on for ever.
    That position is not determined by the availability of fish in the North sea. We are talking about international obligations, not just our national interests. That needs to be addressed before the Minister or the Secretary of State must cope with a real crisis in our fishing industry, when consumers are complaining, not about the price of fish, but about the fact that it is not available.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on an excellent speech. He is well liked in my constituency among the growing number of fishermen who form part of the developing fishing community. They follow his words with great care. Although I cannot always give the answers, they ask me what the Labour Government will do for fisheries. I feel sure that my hon. Friend will be the Minister.
    I wish to deal with the Commission's proposals for total allowable catches in block Vila, which mainly services constituency ports on the coast of Cumbria. I am thinking of Maryport, Workington and Whitchaven, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Those fishing ports face a TAC reduction for cod of 60 per cent., for whiting of 55 per cent., for plaice of 35 per cent. and for sole of 13 per cent.
    The position is aggravated for cod by the Hague preference, whereby regionally dependent communities are given an advantage for reasons which I cannot understand. I should like the Minister to justify that system. I cannot see how Ireland can possibly lay claim to such a concession when conditions there are no worse and no better than those in my constituency. I do not see why Ireland should have the benefit of the preference at a cost to fishermen who work in my ports.
    Mr. Salmond: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for his ports, but we should remember that it was through the intervention work of Garret FitzGerald that we have the Hague preference. It is an excellent principle in the common fisheries policy which emphasises communities which are particularly dependent on fishing. That is a good principle in a fisheries policy, and it was an Irish Foreign Minister who was instumental in achieving it in 1976.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: That was 14 years ago, and communities which were wholly dependent on fishing are perhaps as different today as are constituencies which depended on the steel industry, as the hon. Gentleman will know is the case in Scotland.
    The ports of west Cumberland probably employ about 200 people in the industry and several dozen people in the processing industry. The general view is that, if the TACs are applied, they may wipe out part of the west Cumberland fishing industry. That would be resented, particularly as, over the years, my constituent fishermen

    1209
    have repeatedly made protests to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about conservation policies.
    In the past few years, I have sent a number of letters to the Ministry that have identified the need for conservation schemes as proposed by fishermen in my constituency. Requests were also made for a decommissioning scheme to be introduced.
    Fishermen in my constituency have volutarily changed from using 70 mm nets to 80 mm nets. However, the TAC quotas are based upon scientific assessments which include a calculation based upon 70 mm nets. Therefore, my fishermen strongly believe that the TACs have been set on the basis of inaccurate information. They believe that the matter should be reviewed in the light of equipment used in my area and in other parts of the United Kingdom. My fishermen would not oppose an increase in the mesh size, but obviously they would oppose a 120 mm net.They have, however, voluntarily changed the size of their nets, and they object to the way in which the Commission has produced its figures.
    I have made repeated representations to various Ministers about a decommissioning scheme. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and I was present at those hearings when it dealt with the scheme which has been attacked tonight but which Ministers believe to be the basis upon which they can reject further schemes. The PAC report did not preclude, or include, any reference to the fact that decommissioning schemes were useless and could not be introduced. The Committee accepted that decommissioning schemes could work if that was the will of Government. Then, however, the will of Government was not to make that scheme work, and now they are unwilling to try again.
    I believe that a decommissioning scheme could work. To put it bluntly. if we were to scrap boats that were more than 15 years old, it would wipe out a proportion of the British fishing fleet. Why do Ministers not deal with it on that basis? Why do they not consider the criteria that they have submitted tonight? If the reason for Government reticence is money, they should return to the PAC to examine some of the reports that we have produced on waste of public moneys.
    The other day, the PAC identified a loss of about £100 million in the bus privatisation. Next Monday, we shall consider a loss of £6 billion due to miscalculation of SERPS. Over the years, the PAC has produced many reports about loss of public money as a result of policies being improperly implemented by civil servants or because the proper policy was not pursued. The money is there; it is just a question of how to allocate it properly.
    A decommissioning scheme may be a harsh instrument, but the Government should pursue it. They should not impose damaging cuts on incomes in constituencies such as my own, particularly in the light of what happened earlier this year. My constituents received no additional money from the Government despite inclement weather, and many faced bankruptcy as a result. When the fuel price increases hit boat owners, they were left in a difficult position.
    The Government should go for a decommissioning scheme, and they should do so with sufficient will and energy. They should not stand aside to leave it to the market, as is suggested in the proposals before us.
    10.23 pm
    Mr. Calum MacDonald: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that the arrangements now in force on the Clyde between fishing boats and submarines should be extended to all fishing areas. I know that the Minister suggested that it might be valuable to have a trial period, but I believe that that trial period could be usefully extended to all fishing areas. It is an urgent matter that should be considered by the Government.
    The 10-day lay-up recommendation has been criticised as being potentially dangerous because it would encourage or compel fishermen to fish on days when, because of the weather, it would be inappropriate. The lay-up idea is not new. The 92-day option was the most popular with fishermen, no doubt because it would be easy to evade. That raises a second problem with the 10-day rule, for not only would it be dangerous but it would be almost impossible to enforce.
    If all fishing boats were required to be tied up for 10 days a month, the scheme would become untenable. How could the entire fishing fleet be tied up for 10 days when different weather conditions prevail along different coastlines? Some would be happy to tie up while others would be unhappy because they would be Missing 10 good fishing days. In other words, it would be unfair to impose such a uniform 10-day rule on the fishing industry.
    Alternatively, if fishing boats were allowed to choose their own 10 days in the month, the scheme could not be policed. It would be easy for people to write in their logs the 10 days in question, and then not necessarily keep to them. Either way, the 10-day rule would be difficult to enforce and police.
    When we express doubts about the 10-day rule, the silence of the Government is indicative of their possible acceptance of the rule. That is odd, given that the west coast fishing industry has been proposing to the Government for some months a weekend ban on fishing activity. The Government have not responded in any way to that suggestion, even though they appear to be playing about with the notion of a 10-day ban. I press them urgently to consider the suggestion of the west coast fishing industry for a weekend ban on fishing activity, Unlike a 10-day ban, it would be easy to enforce. It would be easy to identify any boat that was out at the weekend. It would be better for processors because, instead of being idle for a huge chunk of the month, they would be able easily to respond to a consistent weekend hiatus in the supply of fish. They would be able to adjust to that more easily than to a 10-day ban.
    If the Government adopted the west coast suggestion for a weekend ban, they would have an additional card to play in the negotiations. They could say, "We have already begun to incorporate certain ideas," and thereby be better able to resist pressure from other Ministers, especially in regard to the laying up of boats.
    The Minister still uses the word "efficiency" in terms of fishing boats, and talks of the need to keep the most efficient fishing boats in the industry. I pointed out in the previous fisheries debate that efficiency is not a positive word when applied to fishing. In every other industry efficiency means lower prices at the end of the day for the consumer. In the fishing industry, uniquely, efficiency means higher prices for the consumer. Large boats

    1211
    vacuuming up fish from the sea mean in the long run fewer fish and hence higher prices for the consumer. That is exactly what is happening now.
    Rather than scrutinising efficiency in this rather unthinking way, Ministers should look at the effects of
    1212
    policies that they might want to introduce on fishing communities, especially on the west coast of Scotland. That area more than any other has scarce resources, and it would be criminal to embark on a policy that would throw away one of the few natural advantages enjoyed by communities in that area and hand it over to fishermen from other areas.
    10.31 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I begin with a few words about the loss of the Premier and its crew. Fishermen face all sorts of hazards, physical and man made. We need to hold a debate soon on the safety of fishing vessels. I have long argued that United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels should carry immersion suits, and enough of them for all crew members, as they are required to do in France.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was right to emphasise the fragility of some of the fishing communities on the west coast of Scotland, particularly in his constituency. Some of them face a real threat from the advanced vessels from the north-east of Scotland. The technology that we possess for catching fish far outstrips the viability of the stocks. Somehow we must match the technology to the stocks of fish.
    I asked earlier about the Greenland fishery quota. I now declare an interest: my brother Leslie is at this moment fishing for cod off the west coast of Greenland, along with 31 comrades on his stern freezer trawler. That is why I was able to tell the Minister with confidence that one of the reasons why the quota was not taken up was that the weather on both Greenland coasts has been dismal and there has been a lot of ice in the area.
    Fishing off the east coast of Greenland—I have been there only once: never again—is much more dangerous than fishing off the west coast. Ministers may have thought that I was being facetious when I argued that only experienced fishermen should fish in those highly dangerous waters. I was not, although I accepted the Minister's point: how otherwise could fishermen gain experience of those inhospitable waters? Skippers and mates who seek to fish them should first travel as passengers with highly experienced crews. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that we never want to see again the loss of one of our big stern trawlers, such as occurred in 1972 with the loss of the Gaul. In that disaster, 32 men were lost. My brother was a member of the crew, but fortunately, his holiday coincided with that ill-fated voyage.
    As we have seen in the past 24 hours, fishing anywhere in the north Atlantic is dangerous. The further north the fishermen go, the more dangerous it becomes, especially in the presence of ice. I do not know why the Secretary of State for Scotland is laughing, because this is a serious matter. I am sorry that he does not appreciate that.
    I welcome the continuation of fishing in Greenland waters by our small fleet of distant-water trawlers. I also welcome what might be a slight increase in the United Kingdom's share of cod in the Norwegian exclusive zone. That will benefit our fishermen. What is the view of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about what they may see as the small quotas for Norwegian and Faroese waters that are to be given to the former German Democratic Republic?
    I do not want to see fishermen there put ashore for ever, but the new Germany, which is part of the European Community, has a huge national fleet. Many of the aging vessels from east German ports should be tied up. I should not want to cross the Clyde in one of them, let alone fish from them in the north Atlantic. Is the door now open for the renewed Germany to be given bigger quotas in some areas? That important question must be addressed.
    1214
    I am being fair-minded, and I am pleased to see that the Clyde Fishermen's Association will be able to catch another 300 tonnes of Clyde herring. That is a good measure. I share the concern expressed by some hon. Members about the ban on fishing for 10 consecutive days. I said that in an intervention and perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm that the 10 consecutive days will include Saturdays and Sundays and that, in effect, we are talking about the loss of six days' fishing.
    Mr. Curry indicated assent.
    Dr. Godman: The Minister nods, thereby clearing up one ambiguity.
    The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) spoke about what I call the Spanish problem. Members of the Select Committee on European Legislation will know that the president of the European Court of Justice delivered an interim judgment on, I think, section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. If that judgment is carried out in a substantive sense by the European Court of Justice, it will have profound implications not only for our constitution and for this place—whatever power this place has—but for our fishermen, particularly in the south-west of England. That is worrying. That decision may be 18 months away, but it is deeply disturbing.
    I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Harley), who I think has responsibility for fishing, agriculture and many other things, because I want to say a word about the Northern Ireland fleet. I think that he has been present throughout. I welcome him to his new ministerial post. He and I were on a parliamentary delegation recently and I thoroughly enjoyed his company. But we may part company on fishing matters.
    The Northern Ireland fleet, which is important to the Province because of the employment multiplier ratio, and so on, is an aging fleet. I think that I am right in saying that more than 50 per cent. of the fleet is aged 20 years or more. That is getting on, for fishing boats. It is essential that the Minister should argue his corner with his ministerial colleagues as well as in Brussels. When talking about grants and the regeneration of our fleet in the Western Isles, Cornwall and elsewhere, we must not lose sight of the needs of the fishermen of Ulster.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The fleet may be aging, but it was bought second-hand and it has been growing in the past few years.
    Dr. Godman: I readily acknowledge that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman in turn will readily acknowledge that replacing it is a major problem there, just as it is in the Western Isles and elsewhere.
    With regard to the multi-annual guidance programme, can the Secretary of State for Scotland estimate what will be the percentage reduction in the United Kingdom's fishing fleet if we meet our obligations under that programme? Will it be about 25 per cent. between now and the end of 1991, or will it be even more than that? I see that the Secretary of State is getting advice, which I am sure will be good advice. Will the Secretary of State look at that formula and tell us roughly how many fishing vessels would be involved? Is it between 300 and 600 vessels? 'The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I should like to see his answer in the Official Report.

    1215
    In a nutshell, and oversimplifying like mad, too many fishermen are chasing too few fish. The United Kingdom-registered fishing fleet is far too big in terms of the stocks that that fleet harbours, hence the multi-annual guidance programme obligations. Its size must be reduced, and it is a question of how that is to be done. I have argued for some years that it should be achieved by what was called by a distinguished civil servant in the fisheries section of the Scottish Office—Mr. Boyd-Gordon, who retired a couple of years ago—a maritime set-aside. In other words, a decommissioning scheme. It should be possible to introduce one similar to that of the Danes, which reduced their fleet by a sizeable number.
    Other hon. Members mentioned the experience of the previous decommissioning scheme, and there is no doubt that the Hull trawler owners took that scheme, the Government and the present Minister to the cleaners. For example, the owner of the trawler Pict received in the 1960s a grant in the region of £1 million from the White Fish Authority to build that vessel. Just before the disastrous decommissioning scheme was introduced, that owner was negotiating the sale of the Pict. Under the scheme, he received a sum in excess of £500,000, and then sold the vessel for about £600,000.
    The Public Accounts Committee rightly censured the creators and administrators of that scheme. I know fishermen who worked for the owner of that vessel and for others for years, but who received under £500 in redundancy money—which was less than the decommissioning payment of around £415 per gross registered tonne. That is why the right hon. Gentleman and his officials are unwilling to introduce another scheme.
    We should be able to devise a fair scheme. If the Government produced one, we would scrutinise it in a rigorous and critical way—although the Minister does not like criticism, as he showed tonight. The right hon. Gentleman started off being extremely polite, but ended by shouting and bawling at the temporary members of the Scottish National party. There was no need for that. We seek only to protect the interests of our fishermen.
    With the support of right hon. and hon. Members, it ought to be possible to devise a scheme that would enable middle-aged fishermen to tie up once and for all their middle-aged vessels, without facing destitution. That should be our aim, and we should unite in that endeavour. There are too many vessels and too few fish to be caught by them, and the size of our fleet must be reduced.
    A major decommissioning scheme could be devised that would allow for a reduction in the size of our fleet while at the same time allowing its aging sectors to be renewed—to allow young men to enter the catching sector with the conviction that they could earn a decent living in that most hazardous of occupations.
    The Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland are wrong when they argue that there can be no decommissioning scheme. The alternative, if we are to protect our fishing stocks and to maintain their viability, is that fishermen will have to tie up and be reduced to a state of penury. I would willingly support Ministers if they came forward with a decent and reasonable decommissioning scheme for our fishermen.
    10.49 pm
    Mr. Brian Wilson: First, let me associate myself with the condolences that have been extended, through the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), to her constituents who are in mourning tonight.
    This has been a good and a knowledgeable debate. It has been made clear—particularly in the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)—that Labour's approach is not to recriminate in advance of the outcome, but to advance practical objections to the proposals in the hope of contributing constructively to the hand that the Ministers will play next week. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asked us to help him in his battle, and we want to do that because, whatever the longer-term prospects, the livelihoods of many fishermen throughout Britain—and the wider communities which must rely on the industry—depend on the outcome.
    I believe—as, I think, do many other hon. Members who have spoken, and who come from diverse parts of the United Kingdom—that it is fundamentally inaccurate to talk about the Scottish, the English or the Northern Irish fishing industry. Those generic terms cover a series of small industries with very different and sometimes conflicting interests. As we advance into the age of quotas, restrictions and regulations, my thinking becomes conditioned by the danger that, if all the regulations favour the strong against the weak, we shall end up not with healthy communities and the "living harbours" described by the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), but with, perhaps, a more efficient fleet without a socially balanced fishing community.
    That applies to Scotland, England and, indeed, Europe as a whole. I have mentioned the conflict between the interests of, for instance, the east and the west; we should also recognise the problems of the south-west, where Spanish fishing boats are seen as a threat. We do not deny the existence of conservation problems, or scorn scientific evidence because we do not like its conclusions; that would be a foolish attitude for any party to adopt. Only short-term thinkers chase votes in the fishing communities by suggesting that there are painless solutions to the current problems.
    As has been clear from every speech that we have heard tonight, two issues must be the subject of considerable effort and resistance in the Council next week; the question of white fish minimum net sizes, and the proposed requirement for vessels to abstain from fishing for 10 consecutive days per month in 1991. I have spoken to several people on the west coast tonight; the area has a first-class conservation record, and poses absolutely no threat to global stocks. One of those peple told me that, if the compromise of 100 mm mesh were accepted, it would be a disaster for his local fishing industry. He is not trying to dodge conservation responsibilities; he knows the problems that would be created.
    Fishermen's organisations throughout Britain are committed to the 90 mm diamond-shaped mesh size, with the incorporation into the net of a panel of 80 mm square mesh above the cod end. That would reduce the number of discards, and would be a sensible step forward. The Minister should also bear in mind the fact that the change in gear would not only bring conservation benefits, but could be implemented cheaply by fishermen in the areas that I have mentioned. One of the problems of opting for

    1217
    a more dramatic change in mesh size is that many fishermen would have to entirely change their gear at a substantial cost.
    A specific point was made to me and perhaps the Minister will deal with it tonight or write to me. It was suggested that, under the common agricultural policy, French fishermen have a right to have by-catch restrictions waived if they use selective trawls and that that is an incentive to adapt to conservation-minded gear. That seems a sensible proposition and I should be grateful if the Minister could advise me whether it would be open to British fishermen.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was right to say that cuts in catching effort that are based on quotas and restrictions will almost certainly lead to abuse and will appear unnatural to fishermen. By far the best way to approach the matter is with the emphasis on improvement and sophistication in gear and a more conservation-minded approach.
    On the 10-day ban, the arguments are those of common sense and practicality. If fishermen know that there is a lay-off coming up, they have an incentive to fish harder in the preceding weeks. There is a long history of conservation measures that provide an answer on paper but prove to be worse than useless in practice. This is one such proposal, and it should not be agreed to. would increase the relative disadvantage to areas that have smaller boats and a much less capital-intensive fishing infrastructure.
    As I understand it—I am not trying to be smart, and I would be happy for the Minister to write to me about it —the proposal is that a vessel that has achieved 40 per cent. of its total catch by the end of June would come within the framework of the 10-day ban. It seems extraordinary that it does not matter whether it is 40 per cent. of 200 boxes or 40 per cent. of 2,000 boxes. Nobody can make a comparison in terms of the effect on stocks between those two vessels, but the vessel that has caught, on these figures, 80 boxes will be subjected to the same ban as the vessel that has caught 800 boxes. That cannot be right. It disproportionately disadvantages the smaller, more conservation-minded vessels and the weaker fishing communities.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out, fishermen on the west coast have repeatedly called for a weekend ban. They saw this coming and put forward a more sensible approach. The Government should back them and strongly resist what is seen as a foolish proposal.
    The misreporting or non-reporting of catches is a problem in many parts of the country. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred to it as cheating. It is cheating not against the Government or some abstract body but against other fishermen and fishing communities. If vessels go from east to west or north to south or vice versa and claim that fish came from there when they did not, they are taking away the right of fishermen in those areas to catch the fish in that year and are distorting the quotas that those fishermen will be eligible to catch in subsequent years.
    I was told a story tonight—I will not go into detail —about a find at a west coast port last week. Under the surface of what was apparently a catch of coley there were 60 boxes of cod. The point made to me was that, if that is going on frequently and many boats are not reporting their catches, what in heaven's name has that done to the
    1218
    scientific projections on the west coast which have led, in the coming year, to a cut in the quota for west coast fishermen?
    I said earlier that I wished that representatives of every political party would condemn that practice. The elegant way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) did so, without recrimination or sectional divide, was a model. I am sorry that it was not followed; I am particularly sorry that it was not followed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
    The quota for monkfish and megrim is of particular concern on the west coast. It is believed that the precautionary TACs could be increased substantially, which would be a major compensation for fishermen who are losing out in other ways.
    I conclude—these things must be rushed through at this hour—on the issue of decommissioning. The Minister says that it is not the way to reduce pressure on fish stocks. I understand his concern. We know that the previous decommissioning scheme was a fiasco and that it was mismanaged—that has been admitted—and we further know that the pressure stock licensing scheme was a fiasco. I remember that from long before I was a Member, when I wrote about it extensively. Everybody knew that it would be a fiasco. It was wide open to abuse, and it was clear that licences would move from parts of the country that were weak to parts that were already strong. Until that was stopped relatively recently, it is precisely what happened.
    Tonight, as in previous fishery debates, not one Conservative Member has defended the Government's refusal to have any sort of decommissioning scheme. A decommissioning scheme is in progress. It is based on hardship and disillusionment among fishermen arid is taking out the wrong people and vessels. It is not touching the excessive catching power of some areas of the country. It is the wrong kind of decommissioning scheme and it is hurtful to many fishing communities.
    I do not underestimate the difficulties that the Government face in implementing a decommissioning scheme. I sympathise with much of what the Minister said about those difficulties, but it is not adequate to say that there are difficulties and that there have been failures in the past in order to deny the possibility of doing it better in the future.
    As the Minister goes to Europe, we do not wish to divide the House. This matter is for the British Government alone, but within Europe they alone are holding out against it.
    I have been asked by hon. Members who have not spoken to seek an assurance from the Minister about transponders being fitted to gear, bearing in mind everything that has happened in the past two weeks, and about who is to pay for that. We would welcome an early assurance that the cost of transponders, or pingers, will be met by the Ministry of Defence.
    Yes, we wish the Minister well as he goes to Europe. We understand the complexity of the issues in which he is involved. We have defined the issues on which we believe he must fight extremely hard, and we know that many fishermen and fishing communities will be waiting eagerly and anxiously for the outcome of the discussions.
    11.3 pm
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I begin by adding, through the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), my expression of most sincere condolences to the bereaved families and friends of the crew of the fishing vessel Premier, which so tragically foundered recently. Anyone who has had contact with a small fishing community knows the intensity of grief that is experienced in such tragedies. When the bodies cannot be recovered, as so often is the case, the grief is extended and prolonged. I shall pass the hon. Lady's comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I can tell her that the marine accident investigation branch of the Department of Transport will conduct an inquiry into the loss. It will consider what steps are necessary to allow it to carry out its investigation properly. I shall bring her suggestions to my right hon. Friend's attention.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that it would be appropriate if, on behalf of my constituents, I thanked all right hon. and hon. Members who have so rightly expressed their sympathy to them. Sometimes it may seem that words are easy to say, but I know the sincerity with which they were expressed. I shall relay those comments to my constituents over the weekend when I visit the families.
    As the marine investigation group is in contact with Duchies of Lossiemouth, which is releasing as much information as it can about the Premier, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that details about any plans to raise the vessel are immediately given to that office or to me, because the relatives are deeply concerned? I know that the Secretary of State, a similar incident having occurred in his constituency, appreciates the sensitivities of this matter.
    Mr. Lang: I certainly acknowledge that lack of information adds to the pain of the situation. I am sure that the hon. Lady's comments will be noted by those who read the debate. On the same broad subject, I assure the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence will take note of their points about the experiment in the Clyde involving submarines and fishing vessels.
    This wide-ranging debate has embraced fishing interests throughout the United Kingdom. Many right hon. and hon. Members have contributed. Unfortunately, some have not been able to remain for the end of the debate, and I understand the reasons for that. One or two hon. Members have failed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker —particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), who has shown sustained support for fishing interests in East Anglia for a long time.
    The national interest in fishing is reflected in the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food opened the debate; I, with my Scottish responsibilities, have the opportunity to wind it up; the Minister with responsibilities for agriculture and fisheries in Northern Ireland —my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—has been present throughout the debate and has listened carefully to it; and my hon. Friend who takes a special interest in fisheries matters at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
    1220
    Food, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), has been present throughout the debate and contributed to it.
    It has been a United Kingdom debate, reflecting the crucial importance of the fishing industry to many parts of the United Kingdom. The concern that exists on most sides of the House, although it is not so apparent on all, is that we should achieve long-term prosperity in that industry. Those who last year forecast desolation in the industry in 1990 have been proved wrong, as prices have increased to offset the reduction in fish landings. It is essential not to view these matters in the short term; we have to look to the future sustenance of the industry, to its long-term viability, and avoid the easy, short-term palliatives which are sometimes offered.
    A number of themes came through in the debate. There was particular interest in technical conservation matters. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) suggested that there was no support for fishermen. If one reflects on the size of the fishing industry and sets against that the colossal Government effort in enforcement, research and administration, one cannot but admit that the Government rightly give enormous attention to the problems of the fishing industry. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the improvements in technical conservation and the reduction in discards which is sought by the various measures under consideration.
    I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is not present now, that our scientists are negative about the square mesh. Because our scientists had already done work on cod ends and extension pieces, made entirely of square mesh, the industry was aware of the problems of nets made entirely of square mesh. Thoughts turned to panels, which have been experimented with throughout the year.
    I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that there has been a delay. Within six weeks of receiving the Commission's proposals for using 120 mm square mesh net, scientists in the Department had already started the important trials which showed how unrealistic the Commission's proposals were. The House will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon describe the proposal for 120 mm as "dead in the water".
    The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) suggested that 90 mm with 80 mm square mesh panels would be the answer. It is true that that net combination would assist the discard of whiting and haddock, but it would do nothing for cod, and we have to deal with a mixed fishery. We need a measure that gives a balance between the species caught.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Lang: No, because I sense that the House is anxious to move to a conclusion.
    Mr. Salmond: On that point —
    Mr. Lang: No, I want to cover other points on the issue in responding to other hon. Members.
    The important point to emphasise is that technical conservation measures have an important contribution to make in helping to solve the problems. For over a year, we have been pressing for European Community measures to make fishing gear more selective. Square mesh panels and netting can give useful conservation benefits. The debate at

    1221
    the Fisheries Council next week will be about how far we should go in improving selectivity to protect small fish. It is vital that the Community reaches a compromise solution because if the talks fail, everybody loses.
    My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) raised the question of the cuts in plaice and sole in area VII. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are very much aware of the importance of plaice and sole stocks in that area. We will work to increase the TACs proposed where it is within the possibilities of science. We will also try to secure as many advantageous quota swaps as possible.
    My hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) raised the question of quota hoppers, which one can understand because they represent constituencies in the south-west. I know that the matter worries them and that they are in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives recently had a meeting with my right hon. Friend, and I know that he will be aware of the great concern and close attention that is being given to the issue in the Ministry.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised the question of North sea saithe from Norway. It is true that the saithe TAC has increased by 4 per cent. and that Norway has retained more than its industry requires. However, the EC would need to find an additional 11,550 tonnes of cod equivalent and probably 14,500 tonnes of herring to buy it.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about the EC-Norway agreement on fish stocks forming a central role in the determination of North sea TACs and quotas. The key element in the agreement is the treatment of the western mackerel stock. The migratory pattern of the stock has changed in recent years and has resulted in a greater proportion of the fish being found in Norwegian waters. That is the underlying reason why the TACs are being negotiated in that way.
    The central issue in effort limitation was the 10-day rule. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested that, under the Commission's proposals on limitation, boats would be required to fish for 10 consecutive days. He said that boats might, therefore, fish in unacceptable weather. The hon. Member did not get it quite right. The Commission's proposal is that boats fishing predominantly for cod and haddock should desist from fishing for 10 consecutive days of the month. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and others got that right.
    That seems another sensible measure which is worth considering in the context of the need to conserve stocks. We accept the need to limit fishing effort to protect fish stocks. The proposal provides a starting point for discussion and refinement at the Fisheries Council. It is right that it should be further considered.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Lang: No. I am about to go on to decommissioning.
    It is well known that many hon. Members oppose the Government's view on decommissioning. However, they have not answered the point put by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He said
    1222
    that we have to achieve a method that will work and give value for money. It would be possible for a large sum to he spent on the decommissioning scheme without reducing the catch by a single tonne. Some 30 per cent. of tonnage could come out without reducing the catch. Would a decommissioning scheme give good value for money? Our experience of a decommissioning scheme was extremely unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Did not my right hon. Friend listen to what I said on the decommissioning scheme? I endeavoured to deal precisely with my right hon. Friend's argument. Did he also not listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee? The Committee did not attack the concept of decommissioning; it attacked the way in which the decommissioning scheme worked for the Humberside fleet. It suggested that there were other ways in which a decommissioning scheme could be carried out cost-effectively.
    Mr. Lang: I quite understand my right hon. Friend's point, which he has made for some time. The point is that the decommissioning scheme as proposed does not take the catching capacity out of the fleet, and it has not been found to be satisfactory on that ground.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised the matter of the sea fisheries committees for Scotland. This issue has been looked at in the past when the view was taken that the current management system best reflects the circumstances in Scotland. There has been no pressure from the Scottish industry for such changes. That is one area in which I cannot follow English colleagues.
    The fishing industry is immensely important in Scotland, where some two thirds of the landings by value and some three quarters of the landings by volume take place. Eight of the top 10 ports in the United Kingdom by value of landings are in Scotland. All that would be put at risk if we followed the policies of the Scottish National party as set out in the amendment. It calls on the Government to "display some commitment", but the SNP is the party which, if it achieves its attempt to gain independence for Scotland, would destroy the common fisheries policy, which brings those great advantages to Scotland. The SNP talks about a "vital resource industry", but it is the party that would destroy the resources by pandering to the needs of today and neglecting the needs of tomorrow.
    Scottish National party Members cannot have it all ways. They cannot have a policy in their own party of membership of the Community, but reject the procedures by which decisions are taken in the Community. They cannot claim that the fishing industry faces problems, which it undoubtedly does, but reject the means for dealing with those problems. They cannot care about the future of the fishing industry and propose irresponsible policies that would destroy it.
    The policies of the Scottish National party pose an enormous threat to the Scottish fishing industry. An independent Scotland would have just three votes in the Fisheries Council instead of the 10 votes that it has at present. I urge the House to reject the SNP amendment.
    This has been an extremely useful debate ahead of the Fisheries Council. I assure all hon. Members that the constructive points that have been made—for the most

    1223
    part—will be considered carefully ahead of the negotiations. The TACs and quotas for 1991 are but the first step in the management of the fisheries next year. We shall continue to pursue our policy of sensible management measures in consultation with the industry, and always with the aim of securing long-term prosperity.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken once.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House proceeded to a Division:
    Mr. Salmond (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take it after the Division.
    The House having divided: Ayes 22, Noes 76.

    Division No. 29]

    [11.16 pm

    AYES

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Beith, A. J.

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Bellotti, David

    Morley, Elliot

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Doran, Frank

    Salmond, Alex

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Foulkes, George

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Wallace, James

    Haynes, Frank

    Wilson, Brian

    Howells, Geraint

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Mr. Andrew Welsh and

    Kennedy, Charles

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Harris, David

    Amos, Alan

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Atkinson, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Irvine, Michael.

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Jack, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter

    Janman, Tim

    Bowis, John

    Kilfedder, James

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Lang, Ian

    Chapman, Sydney

    Lightbown, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Curry, David

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Dover, Den

    Neubert, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Norris, Steve

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Patnick, Irvine

    Forth, Eric

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Portillo, Michael

    Gregory, Conal

    Raffan, Keith

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Redwood, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Hague, William

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconstield)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Stern, Michael

    1224

    Stevens, Lewis

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Summerson, Hugo

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Wilshire, David

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Wood, Timothy

    Thurnham, Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Tredinnick, David

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr. Nicholas Baker and

    Wells, Bowen

    Mr. Tim Boswell.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 11th December 1990 relating to Total Allowable Catches and Quotas for 1991, the proposals described in its un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 11th December 1990 and its Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 12th December 1990 relating to the reciprocal fisheries Agreement between the Community and Norway for 1991, European Community Document No. 9898/90 on guide prices for fishery products for 1991, and of the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1991 consistent with the requirement for conservation of fishing stocks.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of the incredible speed of delivery of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I was unable to hear whether he was going to the Fisheries Council meeting, whether he was aware that the Government were meant to agree with the 80 mm sq mesh and whether he called the proposal for 10 consecutive days of no fishing a sensible measure. I do not know whether the House could hear. As he is present, perhaps he will clarify those matters.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member is attempting to prolong the debate.

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 17th December, unless proceedings in Committee of the whole House on new Clauses in respect of the Criminal Justice Bill relating to capital punishment have previously been disposed of, the Chairman shall at Ten o'clock put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) the Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a second time, the Question on any Amendment to such a new Clause which has been selected by him and which may then be moved and, thereafter, the Question that the Clause, or the Clause as amended, be added to the Bill);

    (c) any Question necessary to dispose of any other new Clauses and Amendments thereto, which have been selected by him and which may then be moved.—[Mr. Sackville.]

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 19th December, Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall have effect as if the words 'eight o'clock' were substituted for the words 'nine o'clock' in line 15.—[Mr. Sackville]

PETITION

  Southern Africa
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I have a petition to present from Niall Fraser and Steven Dunn, who are students of Montrose academy. It is supported by 570 other students at that academy and citizens of the burgh of Montrose and district.
  The petition demonstrates support for Oxfam's work in fostering economic and social development in southern Africa. The petition states that major obstacles to such developments include apartheid in South Africa, conflict in the region, mounting debts owed by African Governments to northern Governments and banks, as well as the insufficiency of appropriate aid and the failure of Governments to help the poorest in the region:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the British Government to encourage international efforts to tackle these obstacles and support the work of OXFAM to end poverty and suffering in front line Africa.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Medical Research
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]
  11.30 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I must record how grateful I am to Mr. Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to raise the general topic of Department of Health funding of medical research, and the specific needs of some vital research projects in Leicestershire.
  First, however, it is important to comment upon the change in the level of public funding for medical research through the main channel of the Medical Research Council. It is a great credit to the Government that the funds available for medical research have dramatically increased since they came to power in 1979. The Library has provided me with the relevant statistics, from which it is clear that that funding has increased by 47 per cent. In 1981–82, funding increased by a record 28 per cent. and by a further 11 per cent. in 1989–90.
  The funding for heart disease research has been similarly significant. In 1985–86, the level of funding stood at £4·6 million, but in 1989–90 it increased to £5·5 million. In addition, in 1989–90, about £2·5 million of such research was directly funded by the Department of Health. Tonight I hope to be able to persuade my hon. Friend to part with just a little more money.
  The United Kingdom has one of the worst records for heart disease, so research is essential and crucial. Recently, my constituents began to lobby me to work for more funds for research into heart problems, and drew my attention 1.o work at Groby road hospital, Leicester, into mechanical heart valve noises. An observer might reasonably ask about the significance of such noises, and the short answer is that they can establish whether a valve is faulty. Unfortunately, that is a critical issue today, because, in the early 1980s, a number of faulty valves were fitted.
  It has been established that faulty valves have been responsible for at least 250 deaths worldwide. In Britain, 5,000 patients were fitted with those devices. They were withdrawn, however, in the mid-1980s, and although the failure risk of those valves—it is important to stress this —is one in 13,000 as against one in 25,000 for all heart valves, it is enough to cause concern. I have a letter from a constituent who possesses two of those faulty valves. I have received other letters and representations from constituents and others in Leicestershire.
  Apart from the problem of strut failure in the valves, there is the second, related, problem of the clotting of the valve. Research currently under way at Groby road hospital in Leicester, it is suggested, can establish whether a valve is faulty. That research is concerned with a new way of using valve sounds to detect defects, and it was to appeal for funds to allow that research to continue that I originally requested this debate. The issue has been of sufficient concern for the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) to form a national heart valves action group with the intention of banning hear valves that are not approved by the Government.
  The technique for assessing a faulty valve can be explained simply. If one hits an empty cup with a spoon, a characteristic noise is heard. If a blob of Blue-tak or some other substance is affixed to the cup and the cup is then struck like a bell, the noise will be noticeably different. A similar effect occurs when clots form on mechanical

  1227
  prosthetic heart valves, and that provides the only means available for the detection of clots. The technique is studying emissions that occur outside the audio spectrum and cannot be heard using a stethoscope.
  If a clot is detected early, it can be dissolved. If not, it will eventually interfere with the valve operation, and emergency surgery will be necessary, with a consequent high mortality and high cost. There must be a trade-off here in that, if the art can be perfected, the costs of long-term and expensive surgery must be reduced.
  I said that my intention was to ask for additional support for one Leicestershire research project. But having spent time researching for this debate, I feel that I must draw the attention of the House to others in Leicestershire. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are aware that the demand for medical resources far outstrips our ability to provide them. Despite the record increase in funding during our tenure of office, there must be additional ways of raising money. In that connection, I draw attention to Medisearch, which has been established in Leicestershire as a registered charity and which supports medical research at the university of Leicester medical school and teaching hospitals in the county, the royal infirmary, Leicester general hospital and Groby road and Glenfield hospitals.
  In the past, Medisearch has helped research into cot deaths, high blood pressure, strokes and heart disease, high risk pregnancies, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, eye problems of the elderly, kidney transplants and diseases in newborn children. Funds are now urgently needed for research into breast cancer, heart disease, childhood asthma, failing eyesight in the elderly, cystic fibrosis, infertility and brain damage in infants.
  Medisearch's task is to help bridge the gap between the public funding and educational funding of medical research. It is more applied than pure research. In other words, it must be of relevance both to the teaching and application sides in the county hospitals. Priorities at present are for breast cancer research, and of course the cross-fertilisation of research ideas from one project to another is considered important in preventing unnecessary duplication and overlap.
  Medisearch was established many years ago in Leicester to develop the desires of Leicestershire people and local industry to provide such support. Recently, to expand its work to meet the increasing requirements and rewards of research, the trustees have appointed a full-time fund-raising director. He has made tremendous strides in seeking out money with a range of activities which hon. Members would be pleased to claim as part of their fund-raising activities, and I pay tribute to him.
  Apart from the research at Groby road to which I have referred, there are other examples of research projects in the county which currently need funding and which illustrates the effective use of applied medical research in Leicestershire. There is, for instance, the extra-corporeal membrane oxygeneration project—ECMO. The equipment permits the treatment of cardiorespiratory failure when other measures have failed or are not appropriate, such as the breathing of meconium at birth. If a baby is put on an ordinary ventilator, it will usually die. ECMO will
  1228
  keep a baby alive until the lungs recover, and there have been several striking successes, but the treatment costs £5,000 a case.
  Then there is the detection of respiratory problems in infants, especially those less than a year old. Research is needed for viral infections and for babies at risk of cot death. A respiratory function laboratory is being developed in Leicester royal infirmary, but £250,000-worth of equipment is needed to monitor breathing, heart rate and oxygenation.
  Thirdly, there is asthma. Asthma is more prevalent in pre-school children, we know, but we need to research its origins and the environmental factors that contribute to this frightening condition. Monitoring equipment is needed for hospitals and for children who are followed up at home.
  Fourthly, I must mention islet cells from the pancreas. Work on transplanting pancreatic islet cells is advanced in Leicestershire, which is used to treating diabetics. If it works, the new treatment would remove the need for lifetime insulin injections. The condition affects about one in 600 British children. After experimental work, trials are now needed on humans to determine appropriate locations for transplant and the methodology of injections.
  Fifthly, I refer to implantable defibrillators. It is now possible to implant computerised pacemakers that detect irregular ventricles or heartbeats and restore normal heart rhythm, but the treatment costs more than £10,000 per case, and we need trials to find out how effective they are.
  I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to discuss Department of Health funding for medical research. I have brought to the Minister's attention the worries of heart valve patients in my constituency. People concerned about their own condition are visiting the House tonight. I have highlighted some of the important research in Leicestershire and I have drawn to my hon. Friend's attention Medisearch, which bridges the public and private sectors; and I have referred to five other examples of excellent research in Leicestershire. I commend them to my hon. Friend and hope that he will look on them favourably.
  11.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on raising a subject of considerable importance to anyone interested in the future of health care in Britain. The national health service's provision of health care is and will always remain critically dependent on research —to develop new treatments, to discover new drugs and to furnish a better understanding of how the body works, thereby enabling doctors to treat conditions and diseases that previous generations regarded as disabling and beyond the power of physicians.
  One of the most exciting aspects of medical science is the fact that clinicians will never be content to admit defeat in the face of conditions or diseases. They always want —rightly—to find new ways of treating them and of helping the patients. Medical research, funded by the Department of Health, or by the Department of Education and Science, or by the private sector, has a vital role to

  1229
  play in improving health care for patients of the NHS and ensuring that the frontiers of medical science are for ever being extended.
  Any analysis, however, superficial, of the history of medical science in Britain could not fail to be impressed by the pace and extent of advance —over quite a short period —in the quality of care in our hospitals. That is the result of the investment of time and money in medical research.
  The subject chosen by my hon. Friend is of considerable importance to everyone interested in the future of health care in Britain. The scale of research and the progress made in expanding the commitment to research in recent years are remarkable. The figures for research in England made the case for me. My hon. Friend reasonably sought to concentrate on Department of Health research funding, but it would be wrong to look at that in isolation arid not examine the total research effort that is devoted to advancing medical science and improving the quality of health care available to patients.
  By far the biggest investment in health research is not in the public sector but in the private sector. It is estimated that our pharmaceutical industry invests £793 million a year in medical research. I stress that such research is important to the national health service, and it is considerably to the credit of the pharmaceutical industry that its research effort, although essential to the industry's survival, makes a major contribution to the national effort to find new ways to treat disease and improve the condition off patients.
  My constituency is close to that of my hon. Friend, and he will know that it is the location of two major drug companies, both of which are greatly committed to research. One of them employs many of my constituents in medical research. Perhaps some of my hon. Friend's constituents also work in Fisons. It would be quite wrong to overlook that part of our total medical research effort.
  In the independent sector, substantial research is funded by voluntary contributions to research charities. Medisearch is one such charity, about which my hon. Friend spoke. In addition, there is funding through the university councils, as part of the core activity of our universities. There is funding through the Medical Research Council, which is part of the research council effort, and both of those are in the budget of the Department of Education and Science. The Department of Health has a national research budget, and local research is organised within the national health service. Other agencies are also funded by the Department of Health.
  In 1989–90, the latest year for which I have complete figures, the total expenditure on health research in England, quite apart from the other countries of the United Kingdom, was almost 1·4 billion. The expenditure on medical research is the equivalent of almost 1p on income tax. That is a substantial investment and commitment to medical research in the public and private sectors.
  I have sought to stress the importance of setting the Medical Research Council in context, but it is often picked out as the bellwether of the Government's contribution and commitment. Since 1979, the resources available to the council have risen by more than 26 per cent. in real terms. No one can doubt the commitment to and the scale of medical research in Britain.
  The importance of medical research was stressed in a report published in 1988 by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled "Priorities
  1230
  in Medical Research". That report suggested that we should establish a national health research authority in order to try to ensure that some of the officially directed research programmes would have greater unity of purpose and priority.
  In response to that report, the Government published a White Paper in December 1989 also entitled "Priorities in Medical Research" in which we announced that we did not intend to proceed with the proposal for a national health research authority, but that we intended instead to appoint a chief of research and development as a member of the national health service management executive who would be responsible for, among other things, ensuring that the opportunities that existed for national health service management to act as a catalyst for research were taken in order to introduce a properly prioritised approach to health research. Professor Michael Peckham will be taking up those duties in January 1991.
  Not only are we committing the resources, but we are looking all the time to ensure that we get value for money for public sector resources and that we take every opportunity to ensure that our commitment to medical research is carried through in a real and effective way.
  My hon. Friend was anxious to look not only at the national scene —it is important to be clear about the national perspective on medical research—but at what was going on in Leicestershire, a county which both he and I have the honour to represent. He mentioned a number of schemes, and I want to comment on some of them.
  First, my hon. Friend mentioned the research going on in Leicestershire into ways to monitor and improve mechanical heart valves. I hope that the final report of the research carried out at Groby road hospital will provide information on what further possible studies might be justified. If the acoustic assessment technique to which my hon. Friend referred proved capable of detecting early clot formation on mechanical heart valves, I understand that equipment already on the market could be modified by the manufacturer to provide a machine for that purpose for the NHS.
  It has been suggested that the acoustic assessment technique might also be capable of early diagnosis of the mechanical failure of those heart valves. If proposals by an established research organisation were made to the Department to pursue that line of research, they would receive consideration alongside all the other claims and proposals in the competition for research resources within the Department.
  The Department treats seriously the safety of artificial heart valves. We are kept fully informed of matters relating to failure and we are in close touch with manufacturers and relevant regulatory authorities abroad. Since 1985, when the Shiley valve was withdrawn from the United Kingdom market, I am pleased to say that there have been no reports of mechanical heart valve failure in Britain. None the less, that is an important issue in Leicestershire, and I have constituents who are committed to the continuation of those programmes.
  My hon. Friend spoke also about proposals for research in the county on the detection of respiratory problems in infants under one year old and the related subject—to a layman, at least—of asthma. I take a personal interest in both, because my own two-and-a-halfyear-old daughter has the misfortune to be a mild asthma sufferer, so I have seen at first hand the problems that that

  1231
  condition can cause. If there is an opportunity to undertake research into ameliorating those related problems, no one will be better pleased than me.
  My hon. Friend asked about the possibilities of research into extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation—a technique in which blood is oxygenated outside the body. In effect, it amounts to an artificial lung. Conventionally, that technology is used in open heart surgery, while the lungs and heart are being operated upon, and it is referred to as cardio-pulmonary bypass. A pioneering study was undertaken in the United Kingdom by cardio-thoracic surgeons in Leicester to investigate the treatment of newborn babies with damaged lungs—due, for example, to inhalation of poisonous fluid.
  That technique involves the use of specially developed apparatus that minimises the trauma to the blood by the artificial lung, so that it can be used for much longer periods—allowing the damaged lung to heal. If that can be made to work, it will offer an exciting opportunity. It is yet another illustration of the type of research to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks and which, if followed through, can lead to developments in medical technology and treatment that will in future break barriers, and cure conditions that previous generations found impossible to manage.
  All the proposals from within the county to which my hon. Friend referred are a tribute to the inventiveness and ideas of Leicestershire people that test the frontiers of medical knowledge. As a Leicestershire Member of Parliament myself, and as someone interested in the promotion of medical research, I am obviously open to all such ideas. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that, as
  1232
  ever, all proposals must expect to participate in the competition for resources that is a necessary element in the priority process in any budgeting context.
  Mr. Tredinnick: Nevertheless, will my hon. Friend confirm that he will look carefully at the proposals that come before him, even if they may on occasions be a little controversial?
  Mr. Dorrell: Of course I will examine with care the proposals that come before me, and I shall try to disregard the extent to which they are controversial. To the extent that I am asked to make any decisions on the allocation of research resources, it seems important that I should assess them on their merits and not on the nature of the campaigns that are engendered either for or against them.
  I may add—it would be absurd were it otherwise—that the allocation of resources to specific research programmes is not something in which a politician is qualified to intervene. In the whole of our research programme—not just in medical research—we operate a system whereby the politicians allocate the resources, but leave the choice between the competing claims of different groups of scientists to people who are more likely to make informed judgments about their relative merits.
  As my hon. Friend knows, I am by background a business man, not a scientist. I would not claim to be able to make a properly informed decision about the different competing claims to which my hon. Friend refers. However, I can commit the Government to maintaining a medical research programme that will allow for choices to be made by people better qualified than me, to ensure that opportunities for continuing to push forward the boundaries of medical science continue to be taken.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve midnight.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all those whom the registrar of criminal appeals consulted in determining the judges who are to cover the appeal of the six persons convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  The Attorney-General
  The allocation of judges to the Court of Appeal criminal division is the responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chancellor understands that the registrar of criminal appeals consulted the Lord Chief Justice in determining the constitution of the court which will hear the appeals of the six persons convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Law Commissioners
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Government have any proposals to amend the qualification required by a candidate for appointment as a law commissioner in England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  At present, the law governing the appointment of law commissioners in England and Wales requires them to be persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be suitably qualified by the holding of the judicial office, or by experience as a barrister or solicitor, or as a teacher of law in a university. The Lord Chancellor now proposes to extend this latter qualification to include teachers of law at institutions other than universities. He intends to make the necessary amendment to the Law Commissions Act 1965 when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

TRANSPORT

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the pattern of debt to the Consolidated Fund in relation to the Severn bridge to assume a downward trend.

  Mr. Freeman
  If tolls were to continue to be levied under the provisions of the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965 the debt should start to reduce during the financial year 1992–93. But under the Severn Bridges Bill, introduced to the House on 27 November 1990, it is proposed to introduce a new financial regime for the present and the new bridge.

  Radio-navigation Systems
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in recent discussions with other European nations regarding the 448
  introduction of the proposed north-west European Loran C system of radio-navigation; and if he will make a statement on the up-to-date position.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The international discussions are still proceeding. No firm agreement has yet been reached.

  Antares
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry by the marine accident investigation bureau into the sinking of the Antares; if the report will be made public; and if he will arrange to make a statement on its publication of what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine accident investigation branch investigation into the sinking of the Antares has been given the status of an inspector's inquiry under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations. The inquiry involves a very detailed investigation into the circumstances of the accident; and this necessarily takes time to complete. An interim report is expected very shortly. This will assist the Secretary of State in deciding what action needs to be taken. I expect the full report of the chief inspector to be published.

  Jubilee Line (Extension)
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the latest position on London Underground's plans for the Jubilee line extension at Westminster.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that London Underground has now produced a revised design for Westminster station which it believes would better meet the concerns expressed by the House Services Committee. In particular, its new proposal would enable it wholly to avoid using Parliament square as a work site, to reduce the impact upon traffic in the roads surrounding Parliament and to avoid elevated decking in Bridge street. London Underground will shortly be setting out these proposals in a report to the New Buildings Sub-Committee.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the gross domestic product per capita in £ sterling in each of the member nations of the Council of Europe and the Warsaw pact.

  Mr. Maples
  Estimates of gross domestic product per capita for a number of countries are shown in table 1 of "National Accounts Statistics: Main Aggregates and Detailed Tables, 1987" issued by the United Nations earlier this year. Data are also given in the "World Bank Atlas, 1988". Both publications are available in the Library of the House. For the Warsaw pact economies, the information on economic activity is prepared in accordance with the United Nations system of material product balances which differs from the United Nations system of national accounts used to describe Council of Europe economies.

  General Government Expenditure
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report tables showing, for the latest years now available, identifiable general Government expenditure by function in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom expressed (a) in cash terms, (b) as a percentage of United Kingdom total identifiable general Government expenditure, (c) as an amount per capita and (d) as an amount per capita expressed as an index, United Kingdom identifiable general Government expenditure = 100.

  Mr. Mellor
  Most public expenditure is planned on a national basis and there is no geographical disaggregation apart from expenditure which is the responsibility of the territorial Departments. However, in order to provide a more comprehensive breakdown of public expenditure within the four countries of the United Kingdom an additional analysis, covering outturn years, is carried out each year. This analysis allocates, where possible, general Government expenditure to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and, therefore, includes within the territories a wider coverage of expenditure than that for which the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland are directly responsible.

  The analysis divides spending into "identifiable" and "non-identifiable" expenditure. The term "identifiable expenditure" refers to expenditure that can be identified from official records as having been incurred for the benefit of people in a particular country. The coverage of identifiable expenditure has been changed since last year's exercise to produce a greater consistency of treatment between different types of expenditure. In the following analyses of territorial spending all expenditure on common services—for example, revenue and tax collection, financial administration—has been treated as unidenti-fiable. In previous years this category of expenditure was not treated in a consistent manner. This change reduces identifiable expenditure by around £3 billion—2 per cent. —but does not appreciably affect the index of per capita expenditure between territories. Unidentifiable expen-diture mainly consists of expenditure deemed to have been

  Table 1a

  Identifiable general government expenditure 1985–86

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  618·8

  225·4

  109·8

  148·5

  1,102·5

  56·1

  20·4

  10·0

  13·5

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,509·2

  664·5

  340·3

  375·4

  4,889·4

  71·8

  13·6

  7·0

  7·7

  Roads and transport

  3,448·7

  539·5

  268·4

  101·3

  4,357·9

  79·1

  12·4

  6·2

  2·3

  Housing

  3,099·1

  624·0

  135·3

  345·5

  4,203·9

  73·7

  14·8

  3·2

  8·2

  Other environmental services

  3,662·1

  501·2

  282·4

  196·7

  4,642·4

  78·9

  10·8

  6·1

  4·2

  Law, order and protective services

  4,192·1

  519·9

  228·2

  473·6

  5,413·8

  77·4

  9·6

  4·2

  8·7

  Education and science

  13,562·9

  2,052·6

  838·2

  636·0

  17,089·7

  79·4

  12·0

  4·9

  3·7

  Arts and Libraries

  581·8

  69·9

  31·6

  0·0

  683·3

  85·1

  10·2

  4·6

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  16,604·8

  2,314·8

  1,051·0

  697·8

  20,668·4

  80·3

  11·2

  5·1

  3·4

  Social Security

  35,311·3

  4,072·6

  2,245·7

  1,310·0

  42,939·6

  82·2

  9·5

  5·2

  3·1

  Miscellaneous1

  -33·8

  97·3

  34·5

  33·3

  131·3

  -25·7

  74·1

  26·3

  25·4

  TOTAL

  84,557·0

  11,681·7

  5,565·4

  4,318·1

  106,122·2

  79·7

  11·0

  5·2

  4·1

  450
  incurred on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole, for example, defence, overseas aid and other overseas services and common services. It also covers expenditure which cannot readily be divided between territories from existing departmental records.

  Tables 1 to 5 show figures for identifiable general Government expenditure according to main function in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the years 1985–86 to 1989–90. The tables show identifiable general Government expenditure in each territory in total and on a per capita basis. The per capita figures are based on mid-year population estimates. Figures for earlier years are not available on a totally consistent basis with those given in these tables.

  Table 6 compares expenditure by function in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland programmes in 1989–90 with the total identifiable expenditure in the respective countries. It shows that identifiable expenditure has a wider coverage than expenditure within the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales; in the case of Northern Ireland it has a slightly wider coverage than the Northern Ireland programme. The table also shows, for 1989–90, unidentifiable expenditure where this can be allocated to function.

  In some cases, expenditure which cannot be separately identified for England, Scotland or Wales can be allocated to Great Britain rather than to the United Kingdom; for example, the majority of the finance provided for expenditure by the nationalised industries can be allocated to Great Britain. Tables 7a and 7b compare Northern Ireland allocated expenditure with that allocated to Great Britain over the five-year period.

  The extent to which expenditure can be identified may vary from year to year and between countries. The coverage of particular functions can also vary between countries; for example, in Northern Ireland, expenditure on arts and libraries is contained in the education category.

  The terms and definitions used for this analysis are the same as those used for the recent autumn statement—Cm. 1311—but the figures are based on less up-to-date outturn information.
  451

  Table 1b

  Identifiable general government expenditure per head 1985–86

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  13·1

  43·9

  39·0

  95·3

  19·5

  67·5

  225·4

  200·5

  489·5

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  74·5

  129·4

  121·0

  241·0

  86·4

  86·3

  149·8

  140·1

  279·0

  Roads and transport

  73·2

  105·0

  95·5

  65·0

  77·0

  95·1

  136·5

  124·0

  84·5

  Housing

  65·8

  121·5

  48·1

  221·8

  74·3

  88·6

  163·6

  64·8

  298·7

  Other environmental services

  77·7

  97·6

  100·4

  126·3

  82·0

  94·8

  119·0

  122·5

  154·0

  Law, order and protective services

  89·0

  101·2

  81·2

  304·0

  95·6

  93·1

  105·9

  84·9

  317·9

  Education and science

  287·9

  399·6

  298·1

  408·3

  301·8

  95·4

  132·4

  98·9

  135·3

  Arts and Libraries

  12·3

  13·6

  11·2

  0·0

  12·1

  102·3

  112·8

  93·1

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  352·5

  450·7

  373·8

  447·9

  365·1

  96·5

  123·5

  102·4

  122·7

  Social Security

  749·5

  792·9

  798·7

  840·9

  758·4

  98·8

  104·5

  105·3

  110·9

  Miscellaneous1

  -0·7

  18·9

  12·3

  21·4

  2·3

  -30·9

  816·8

  529·1

  921·8

  TOTAL

  1,794·8

  2,274·3

  1,979·3

  2,771·9

  1,874·4

  95·8

  121·3

  105·6

  147·9

  1 Expenditure includes net receipts of Land Registry in England and Wales and costs from the central administration of the offices of the Secretaries of State.

  Table 2a

  Identifiable general government expenditure 1986–87

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  590·2

  202·7

  120·9

  153·7

  1,067·5

  55·3

  19·0

  11·3

  14·4

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,911·4

  811·1

  404·2

  387·7

  5,514·4

  70·9

  14·7

  7·3

  7·0

  Roads and transport

  3,599·1

  575·5

  292·7

  105·0

  4,572·3

  78·7

  12·6

  6·4

  2·3

  Housing

  2,956·2

  631·2

  177·8

  334·7

  4,099·9

  72·1

  15·4

  4·3

  8·2

  Other environmental services

  3,841·6

  546·9

  318·5

  209·8

  4,916·8

  78·1

  11·1

  6·5

  4·3

  Law, order and protective services

  4,592·2

  571·2

  247·4

  521·3

  5,932·1

  77·4

  9·6

  4·2

  8·8

  Education and science

  14,838·6

  2,198·4

  924·6

  729·0

  18,690·6

  79·4

  11·8

  4·9

  3·9

  Arts and Libraries

  619·1

  72·1

  33·6

  0·0

  724·8

  85·4

  9·9

  4·6

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  17,878·6

  2,444·1

  1,131·4

  748·8

  22,202·9

  80·5

  11·0

  5·1

  3·4

  Social Security

  37,965·2

  4,355·6

  2,442·8

  1,423·2

  46,168·8

  82·2

  9·4

  5·3

  3·1

  Miscellaneous1

  -47·7

  103·5

  36·7

  39·7

  132·2

  -36·1

  78·3

  27·8

  30·0

  TOTAL

  90,744·5

  12,512·3

  6,130·6

  4,652·9

  114,040·3

  79·6

  11·0

  5·4

  4·1

  Table 2b

  Identifiable general government expenditure per head 1986–87

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  12·5

  39·6

  42·9

  98·7

  18·8

  66·4

  210·5

  227·9

  525·0

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  82·8

  158·4

  143·3

  249·0

  97·1

  85·2

  163·0

  147·5

  256·3

  Roads and transport

  76·2

  112·4

  103·8

  67·4

  80·6

  94·6

  139·5

  128·8

  83·7

  Housing

  62·6

  123·3

  63·0

  215·0

  72·2

  86·6

  170·7

  87·3

  297·7

  Other environmental services

  81·3

  106·8

  112·9

  134·8

  86·6

  93·9

  123·3

  130·3

  155·6

  Law, order and protective services

  97·2

  111·5

  87·7

  334·9

  104·5

  93·0

  106·7

  83·9

  320·4

  Education and science

  314·0

  429·3

  327·8

  468·3

  329·3

  95·4

  130·4

  99·5

  142·2

  Arts and Libraries

  13·1

  14·1

  11·9

  0·0

  12·8

  102·6

  110·3

  93·3

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  378·3

  477·3

  401·1

  481·0

  391·1

  96·7

  122·0

  102·5

  123·0

  Social Security

  803·4

  850·5

  865·9

  914·2

  813·7

  98·7

  104·5

  106·4

  112·4

  Miscellaneous1

  -1·0

  20·2

  13·0

  25·5

  2·3

  -43·3

  867·8

  558·6

  1,094·9

  TOTAL

  1,920·3

  2,443·3

  2,173·2

  2,988·8

  2,009·0

  95·6

  121·6

  108·2

  148·8

  452 453
  1 Expenditure includes net receipts of Land Registry in England and Wales and costs from the central administration of the offices of the Secretaries of State.

  Table 3a

  Identifiable general government expenditure 1987–88

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  632·1

  194·3

  97·4

  152·8

  1,076·6

  58·7

  18·0

  9·0

  14·2

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,646·4

  704·7

  406·8

  369·2

  5,127·1

  71·1

  13·7

  7·9

  7·2

  Roads and transport

  3,761·5

  589·1

  333·5

  108·6

  4,792·7

  78·5

  12·3

  7·0

  2·3

  Housing

  2,981·1

  716·9

  225·9

  336·6

  4,260·5

  70·0

  16·8

  5·3

  7·9

  Other environmental services

  3,749·3

  587·4

  334·9

  229·6

  4,901·2

  76·5

  12·0

  6·8

  4·7

  Law, order and protective services

  5,094·1

  643·6

  277·2

  592·1

  6,607·0

  77·1

  9·7

  4·2

  9·0

  Education and science

  16,234·5

  2,386·5

  1,018·2

  787·4

  20,426·6

  79·5

  11·7

  5·0

  3·9

  Arts and Libraries

  666·1

  78·0

  37·8

  0·0

  781·9

  85·2

  10·

  4·8

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  19,711·0

  2,665·9

  1,256·1

  810·1

  24,443·1

  80·6

  10·9

  5·1

  3·3

  Social Security

  39,496·6

  4,673·1

  2,557·5

  1,504·1

  48,231·3

  81·9

  9·7

  5·3

  3·1

  Miscellaneous1

  -49·2

  109·1

  37·1

  38·5

  135·5

  -36·3

  80·5

  27·4

  28·4

  TOTAL

  95,923·5

  13,348·6

  6,582·4

  4,929·0

  120,783·5

  79·4

  11·1

  5·4

  4·1

  Table 3b

  Identifiable general government expenditure per head 1987–88

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  13·3

  38·0

  34·3

  97·0

  18·9

  70·5

  201·0

  181·6

  513·0

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  76·9

  137·8

  143·4

  234·4

  90·1

  85·4

  153·1

  159·3

  260·3

  Roads and transport

  79·3

  115·2

  117·6

  68·9

  84·2

  94·3

  136·9

  139·7

  81·9

  Housing

  62·9

  140·2

  79·6

  213·7

  74·8

  84·0

  187·4

  106·4

  285·6

  Other environmental services

  79·1

  114·9

  118·1

  145·8

  86·1

  91·9

  133·5

  137·2

  169·3

  Law, order and protective services

  107·5

  125·9

  97·7

  375·9

  116·1

  92·6

  108·5

  84·2

  323·9

  Education and science

  342·5

  466·8

  359·0

  499·9

  358·8

  95·4

  130·1

  100·1

  139·3

  Arts and Libraries

  14·1

  15·3

  13·3

  0·0

  13·7

  102·3

  111·1

  97·0

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  415·8

  521·5

  442·9

  514·3

  429·4

  96·8

  121·5

  103·2

  119·8

  Social Security

  833·1

  914·1

  901·7

  954·9

  847·2

  98·3

  107·9

  106·4

  112·7

  Miscellaneous1

  -1·0

  21·3

  13·1

  24·4

  2·4

  -43·6

  896·7

  549·6

  1,027·0

  TOTAL

  2,023·4

  2,611·2

  2,320·9

  3,129·3

  2,121·6

  95·4

  123·1

  109·4

  147·5

  1 Expenditure includes net receipts of Land Registry in England and Wales and costs from the central administration of the offices of the Secretaries of State.

  Table 4a

  Identifiable general government expenditure 1988–89

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  707·4

  203·8

  108·0

  146·3

  1,165·5

  60·7

  17·5

  9·3

  12·6

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,773·2

  660·0

  405·8

  770·61

  5,609·6

  67·3

  11·8

  7·2

  13·7

  Roads and transport

  3,904·7

  596·1

  338·8

  112·1

  4,951·7

  78·9

  12·0

  6·8

  2·3

  Housing

  2,120·3

  644·7

  172·8

  334·3

  3,272·1

  64·8

  19·7

  5·3

  10·2

  Other environmental services

  3,962·4

  647·0

  352·5

  259·0

  5,220·9

  75·9

  12·4

  6·8

  5·0

  Law, order and protective services

  5,741·0

  715·4

  309·4

  637·1

  7,402·9

  77·6

  9·7

  4·2

  8·6

  Education and science

  17,396·3

  2,604·3

  1,083·3

  852·8

  21,936·7

  79·3

  11·9

  4·9

  3·9

  Arts and Libraries

  795·0

  92·3

  41·9

  0·0

  292·2

  85·6

  9·9

  4·5

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  21,789·2

  2,968·9

  1,390·9

  889·1

  27,038·1

  80·6

  11·0

  5·1

  3·3

  Social security

  40,270·9

  4,697·8

  2,745·9

  1,567·3

  49,281·9

  81·7

  9·5

  5·6

  3·2

  Miscellaneous2

  -571

  115·8

  40·1

  47·1

  145·9

  -39·1

  79·4

  27·5

  32·3

  454

  455

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  TOTAL

  100,403·3

  13,946·1

  6,989·4

  5,615·7

  126,954·5

  79·1

  11·0

  5·5

  4·4

  Table 4b

  Identifiable general government expenditure per head 1988–89

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  14·9

  40·0

  37·8

  92·7

  20·4

  72·9

  195·9

  185·1

  453·9

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  79·4

  129·6

  142·0

  488·31

  98·3

  80·7

  131·8

  144·5

  496·7

  Roads and transport

  82·1

  117·0

  118·6

  71·0

  86·8

  94·7

  134·9

  136·7

  81·9

  Housing

  44·6

  126·6

  60·5

  211·8

  57·3

  77·8

  220·7

  105·5

  369·4

  Other environmental services

  83·4

  127·0

  123·4

  164·1

  91·5

  91·1

  138·8

  134·9

  179·4

  Law, order and protective services

  120·8

  140·4

  108·3

  403·7

  129·7

  93·1

  108·3

  83·5

  311·2

  Education and science

  366·0

  511·2

  379·2

  540·4

  384·4

  95·2

  133·0

  98·6

  140·6

  Arts and Libraries

  16·7

  18·1

  14·7

  0·0

  16·3

  102·7

  111·3

  90·1

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  458·4

  582·8

  486·8

  563·4

  473·8

  96·7

  123·0

  102·8

  118·9

  Social security

  847·2

  922·2

  961·1

  993·2

  863·6

  98·1

  106·8

  111·3

  115·0

  Miscellaneous2

  -1·2

  22·7

  14·0

  29·8

  2·6

  -47·0

  889·1

  549·0

  1,167·4

  TOTAL

  2,112·1

  2,737·8

  2,446·4

  3,558·5

  2,224·7

  94·9

  123·1

  110·0

  160·0

  1 Includes £390 million (£247 per head) for costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc.

  2 Expenditure includes net receipts of Land Registry in England and Wales and costs from the central administration of the offices of the Secretaries of State.

  Table 5a

  Identifiable general government expenditure 1989–90

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  890·9

  220·2

  105·9

  182·7

  1,399·7

  63·6

  15·7

  7·6

  13·1

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,676·6

  648·9

  362·0

  1751·0

  5,438·5

  67·6

  11·9

  6·7

  13·8

  Roads and transport

  4,624·5

  696·9

  346·5

  130·8

  5,798·7

  79·8

  12·0

  6·0

  2·3

  Housing

  3,365·7

  645·1

  169·6

  267·2

  4,447·6

  75·7

  14·5

  3·8

  6·0

  Other environmental services

  5,310·6

  715·2

  449·6

  279·6

  6,755·0

  78·6

  10·6

  6·7

  4·1

  Law, order and protective services

  6,482·2

  808·1

  329·1

  697·6

  8,317·0

  77·9

  9·7

  4·0

  8·4

  Education and science

  19,153·9

  2,825·4

  1,168·8

  940·0

  24,088·1

  79·5

  11·7

  4·9

  3·9

  Arts and Libraries

  910·6

  101·1

  48·5

  0·0

  1,060·2

  85·9

  9·5

  4·6

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  23,609·8

  3,267·8

  1,521·0

  961·6

  29,360·2

  80·4

  11·1

  5·2

  3·3

  Social Security

  42,616·6

  5,024·3

  2,907·3

  1,700·5

  52,248·7

  81·6

  9·6

  5·6

  3·3

  Miscellaneous2

  -1·7

  126·3

  49·7

  59·0

  233·3

  -0·7

  54·1

  21·3

  25·3

  TOTAL

  110,639·7

  15,079·3

  7,458·0

  5,970·0

  139,147·0

  79·5

  10·8

  5·4

  4·3

  Table 5b

  Identifiable public expenditure per head 1989–90

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  18·7

  43·3

  36·9

  115·4

  24·5

  76·4

  176·9

  150·7

  471·9

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  77·1

  127·5

  126·0

  1474·4

  95·0

  81·1

  134·2

  132·6

  499·3

  Roads and transport

  97·0

  136·9

  120·6

  82·6

  101·3

  95·7

  135·1

  119·0

  81·6

  Housing

  70·6

  126·7

  59·0

  168·8

  77·7

  90·8

  163·1

  76·0

  217·2

  Other environmental services

  111·4

  140·5

  156·5

  176·6

  118·0

  94·4

  119·0

  132·6

  149·7

  456

  457

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Law, order and protective services

  135·9

  158·7

  114·5

  440·7

  145·3

  93·5

  109·2

  78·8

  303·3

  Education and science

  401·6

  555·0

  406·8

  593·8

  420·9

  95·4

  131·9

  96·7

  141·1

  Arts and Libraries

  19·1

  19·9

  16·9

  0·0

  18·5

  103·1

  107·2

  91·1

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  495·1

  641·9

  529·4

  607·5

  513·0

  96·5

  125·1

  103·2

  118·4

  Social Security

  893·6

  987·0

  1,011·9

  1,074·2

  912·9

  97·9

  108·1

  110·8

  117·7

  Miscellaneous2

  0·0

  24·8

  17·3

  37·3

  4·1

  -0·9

  608·7

  424·4

  914·4

  TOTAL

  2,320·0

  2,962·1

  2,595·8

  3,771·3

  2,431·1

  95·4

  121·8

  106·8

  155·1

  1 Includes £305 million (£193 per head) for costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc.

  2 Expenditure includes net receipts of Land Registry in England and Wales and costs from the central administration of the offices of the Secretaries of State.

  Table 6 General government expenditure analysed by territorial area and function 1989–901 Identifiable expenditure

  £ million

  England

  Scotland (total)

  Programme 152

  Scotland (total)

  Wales other

  Programme 162

  Wales other

  Northern Ireland (total)

  Programme 172

  Northern Ireland other3

  Total

  Non Identified

  United Kingdom

  Defence

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,680·7

  20,680·7

  Overseas services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,537·6

  2,537·6

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  890·9

  220·2

  202·7

  17·5

  105·9

  96·2

  9·7

  182·7

  179·2

  3·5

  1,399·7

  913·8

  2,313·5

  Trade, Industry, energy and employment

  3,676·6

  648·9

  260·8

  388·1

  362·0

  167·5

  194·5

  751·0

  751·0

  0·0

  5,438·5

  2,728·4

  8,166·9

  Roads and transport

  4,624·5

  696·9

  695·9

  1·0

  346·5

  346·5

  0·0

  130·8

  130·8

  0·0

  5,798·7

  1,071·5

  6,870·2

  Housing

  3,365·7

  645·1

  645·1

  0·0

  169·6

  169·6

  0·0

  267·2

  267·2

  0·0

  4,447·6

  0·0

  4,447·6

  Other environmental services

  5,310·6

  715·2

  709·4

  5·8

  449·6

  444·6

  5·0

  279·6

  279·6

  0·0

  6,755·0

  511·7

  7,266·7

  Law, order and protective services

  6,482·2

  808·1

  775·1

  33·0

  329·1

  0·0

  329·1

  697·6

  666·2

  31·4

  8,317·0

  1,631·3

  9,948·3

  Education and science5

  19,153·9

  2,825·4

  2,547·5

  277·9

  1,168·8

  1,005·6

  163·2

  940·0

  940·0

  0·0

  24,088·1

  902·3

  24,990·4

  Arts and libraries5

  910·6

  101·1

  101·1

  0·0

  48·5

  48·5

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1,060·2

  188·5

  1,248·7

  Health and personal social services

  23,609·8

  3,267·8

  3,267·8

  0·0

  1,521·0

  1,521·0

  0·0

  961·6

  961·6

  0·0

  29,360·2

  40·2

  29,400·4

  Social security

  42,616·6

  5,024·3

  0·0

  5,024·3

  2,907·3

  0·0

  2,907·3

  1,700·5

  1,687·9

  12·6

  52,248·7

  637·9

  52,886·6

  Miscellaneous6

  -1·7

  126·3

  126·3

  0·0

  49·7

  48·0

  1·7

  59·0

  59·0

  0·0

  233·3

  6,909·6

  7,142·9

  Total expenditure

  110,639·7

  15,079·3

  9,331·7

  5,747·6

  7,458·0

  3,847·5

  3,610·5

  5,970·0

  5,922·5

  47·5

  139,147·0

  38,753·5

  177,900·5

  1 Items included in general government expenditure but not included within total expenditure on programmes (privatisation proceeds, general government debt interest and accounting adjustments) are treated as unidentified expenditure and not allocated to territories.

  2 Programmes 15,16 and 17 relate to expenditure programmes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland covered by the respective chapters of the 1990 public expenditure White Paper (Cm 1015–1017).

  3 Responsibility for most expenditure in Northern Ireland rests with the Northern Ireland Office and Departments; this column includes certain expenditure in support of the agriculture and fishing industries, the costs of the Northern Ireland Court Service and War Pensions payments.

  4 Includes £305 million for costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc.

  5 Expenditure on arts and libraries in Northern Ireland is included with education and science.

  6 Includes contributions to European Communities and expenditure associated with general maintenance of government, such as tax collection and population registration.

  Table 7a: General government expenditure1 in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 1985–86 to 1989–90

  £ million

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure =100)

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom identified

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  1985–86

  107,277·2

  4,414·3

  111,691·5

  96·0

  4·0

  1986–87

  113,847·9

  4,691·9

  118,539·8

  96·0

  4·0

  1987–88

  120,706·2

  4,885·4

  125,591·6

  96·1

  3·9

  1988–89

  126,387·4

  25,645·5

  132,032·9

  95·7

  4·3

  1989–90

  138,807·6

  36,004·3

  144,811·9

  95·9

  4·1

  Table 7b: General government expenditure per head1 in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 1985–86 to 1989–90

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom identified

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  1985–86

  1,948·4

  2,833·7

  1,972·7

  98·8

  143·6

  1986–87

  2,062·6

  3,013·8

  2,088·7

  98·8

  144·3

  1987–88

  2,180·6

  3,101·6

  2,206·1

  98·8

  140·6

  1988–89

  2,277·8

  23,577·4

  2,313·7

  98·4

  154·6

  1989–90

  2,494·2

  33,793·0

  2,530·1

  98·6

  149·9

  458 459
  1 The figures in these tables differ from those for identifiable expenditure given in Tables 1–6 because their coverage is wider; in particular some of the finance provided for nationalised industries is included.

  2 Includes £390 million (£247 per head) for costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc.

  3 Includes £305 million (£193 per head) for costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: Expenditure by the Treasury on promotional advertising is as follows:

  1988–89 (Actual)

  1989–90 (Actual)

  1990–91 (Budget/Provision)

  £49,310

  £52,568

  £52,800

  Notes:

  1 Figures for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are not readily available and could be given only at disproportionate cost.

  2None of the expenditure shown in the table is for television or radio advertising.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the change in Treasury income during the 1991–92 financial year resulting from confining all income tax exemptions to an upper limit of 20 per cent.

  Thousands

  Standard Region

  Latest OPCS estimate of resident population June 1989

  Number on Community Charges Register on 10 September 1990 subject to a personal charge on

  1 June 1990 Students

  10 September 1990 Others1

  Northern

  2,376

  34

  2,300

  North West

  4,889

  71

  4,631

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,805

  70

  3,643

  East Midlands

  3,084

  38

  2,981

  West Midlands

  4,000

  53

  3,842

  East Anglia

  1,577

  23

  1,521

  South West

  3,643

  40

  3,511

  South East

  8,219

  105

  7,915

  Greater London

  5,246

  93

  5,078

  1 including full year equivalent of number contributing to collective community charge in 1990–91.

  The difference between the OPCS figures, which are estimates based on the 1981 population census, and the numbers on the registers subject to a personal community charge may not equal the number of exemptions due to the different sources used to derive the figures and the different reference dates used.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review his decision not to take account of the use of balances to support revenue expenditure in 1990–91 in making his decisions on poll tax capping in 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  As I told the House on 3 December, the intentions for criteria announced on 31 October remain the Government's intended criteria for 1991–92. When my right hon. Friend comes to make his decisions on capping he will take into account all appropriate considerations.
  460
  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: It is estimated that at 1991–92 levels of income the revenue yield in a full year from restricting income tax reliefs to an upper limit of 20 per cent. of gross income less personal allowances would be about £2¼ billion and some 6½ million taxpayers, of whom almost all currently pay at the basic rate, would pay more tax. These estimates are based on projections from the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional. They are based on an increase in personal allowances and the basic rate threshold of 10½ per cent. in 1991–92 in line with the illustrative rates published in the 1990 autumn statement and do not take account of any behavioural changes that might result from the new regime.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of adults in each standard region together with the number of persons liable for the payment of poll tax at (a) the minimum rate, (b) a reduced rate and (c) the full rate.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is as follows:

  Small Cetaceans
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to adhere to the conditions of the Berne convention by protecting the habitat of small cetaceans, and in particular the dolphin populations in the Moray firth and Cardigan bay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government fulfil their obligations under the Berne convention principally through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The 1981 Act, as subsequently amended, prohibits the deliberate killing, injuring or taking of all small cetacean species.

  The Government's strategy for protection of the marine environment was set out in the environment White Paper—Cm. 1200. In accordance with the wildlife initiatives agreed in the ministerial declaration of the third North sea

  461
  conference in March this year, new research is being commissioned to improve knowledge of cetacean behaviour and to analyse tissue samples from stranded animals. Good progress is also being made on the preparation of an agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans in the Baltic and North seas under the Bonn convention on migratory species.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of homeless persons aged 16 and 17 years.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985. Information on age is not collected and the Department has no such estimates.

  The Mall
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when The Mall in London SW1 was first closed to traffic on Sundays; and what arrangements have been made since then to facilitate the flow of traffic which has to use other roads.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Mall was first closed to motor traffic on Sundays on 28 July 1968 for an experimental period.

  Housing and construction statistics (Tables 6.1 and 6.7)

  Numbers of dwellings (England): Starts

  Wheelchair

  Mobility

  Housing Association

  Local Authority or New Town

  Housing Association

  Local Authority or New Town

  Total disabled dwellings

  Total Housing Association/Local Authority or New Town

  1979

  129

  576

  2,316

  5,950

  8,971

  68,972

  1980

  85

  488

  3,347

  4,733

  8,653

  46,564

  1981

  16

  256

  40

  1,926

  2,238

  78,136

  1982

  32

  296

  135

  2,594

  3,057

  43,836

  1983

  31

  357

  53

  2,639

  3,080

  42,259

  1984

  89

  333

  262

  1,369

  2,053

  35,001

  1985

  34

  263

  125

  1,420

  3,895

  28,980

  1986

  33

  207

  85

  1,114

  1,439

  27,745

  1987

  27

  165

  121

  947

  1,260

  25,052

  1988

  60

  244

  235

  950

  1,489

  23,383

  1989

  42

  188

  328

  543

  1,101

  22,588

  19901

  67

  69

  102

  469

  723

  15,295

  1 To third quarter.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what progress has been made on the revised guidelines for aggregates provision in England and Wales; and when they will be published for public consideration;

  (2) if he will allow an opportunity for additional public consultation on a range of options for future aggregates provision before the regional aggregates working parties have finalised their commentaries on future supply requirements;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to include reference to the fact that the demand for aggregates is not immutable in his revision of the guidelines for aggregates provision in England and Wales.

  Mr. Yeo
  Following the completion of the 1989 survey into aggregates production, sales and distribution my right 462
  The arrangement was made permanent in April 1969 and extended to include the Queen Victoria memorial roundabout and Constitution hill. The Department has made no special arrangements for traffic flow on other roads in the royal parks.

  Wheelchair and Mobility Housing
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of provision of wheelchair and mobility housing over the last 10 years.

  Sir George Young
  The figures for housing association and local authority wheelchair and mobility dwellings are shown in the table. Since October 1987, housing associations have been required to construct all new-build housing and rehabilitation schemes to mobility standards, wherever practicable. In addition, disabled people may obtain assistance for house adaptations under the new house renovation grants system introduced in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and this should help to increase the amount of housing suitable for people with disabilities. Local authorities' spending on home improvement grants for works to disabled persons' dwellings in England, increased from £2·547 million in 1980–81 to £51·549 million in 1988–89.

  hon. Friend proposes to revise "Guidelines for the Provision of Aggregates in England and Wales", MPG6. The survey will be published in the new year, together with a forecast of the future demand for primary aggregates. The implications of this will be discussed by the regional aggregates working parties during 1991. In particular they will consider the relevance of the forecast for the region, the land use planning implications and how future demand might be met.

  Before publishing a revision of the present "Guidelines for the Provision of Aggregates in England and Wales", MPG6, my right hon. Friend will consider the views of the regional aggregates working parties, together with any other views which may be expressed. It is not intended to undertake a wider range of formal consultations until a draft of the revised guidelines is available, but my right hon. Friend will make available the information given to the regional aggregates working parties and will consider

  463
  any views that may be expressed about the future demand for aggregates before publishing the draft revised guidelines for full public consultation towards the end of 1991.

  In considering future guidelines for aggregates provision, it will be important to consider a range of options. This will include the likely demand for aggregates and the extent to which use may be made of secondary materials such as colliery minestone and china clay sand as well as waste and recycled materials including power station ash, blast furnace slag and crushed concrete. Also to be taken into account will be the potential offered by marine sand and gravel and imports from outside England and Wales. My Department already has a number of research projects in hand to examine these options and the results will be important in the preparation of new guidelines.

  It remains important that the minerals planning authorities should continue to implement the advice given in MPG6 which remains the current guidance on aggregates provision.

  Building Surveyors
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the present status of professional liability in relation to building surveyors.

  Sir George Young
  The professional liability of building surveyors, as of other construction professionals, is dealt with under common law, contract law and such Acts as the Latent Damage Act 1986.

  Housing Investment Programmes
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make the allocations to local authorities in England for their housing investment programmes in 1991–92.

  Sir George Young
  Each housing authority is today being informed of its housing investment programme—HIP—allocation for 1991–92. Copies of the letters to local authorities and of the schedule of HIP allocations have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The local authority associations have been consulted about the distribution of housing capital allocations, including the construction of the generalised needs index —GNI—which has been further updated for 1991–92 following the comprehensive review last year. In particular, we have this year introduced a new indicator into the GNI to measure authorities' use of temporary accommodation. This helps to ensure that those authorities that face the most severe homelessness problems and that have had to meet them by using temporary accommodation receive additional resources to reflect their needs.

  Local authority credit approvals and specified capital grant total £1,972 million in 1991–92. There are also £7 million of other capital grants. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 allows my right hon. Friend to take account of local authorities' capital receipts when making allocations, and the housing element of the receipts taken into account in this way is £276 million. Housing capital allocations for 1991–92 will therefore total £2,255 million.
  464
  After considering the views of the local authority associations, my right hon. Friend has concluded that the distribution of resources should be made on the following basis:
  (i) £387 million to be allocated separately as supplementary credit approvals as follows:
  (a) £115 million for the second year of the special homelessness initiative; local authorities in London and the south-east will shortly be invited to submit bids, particularly to bring empty homes back into use and for cash incentive schemes;
  (b) £185 million of the total of £290 million available for the Estate Action programme, for new and some continuation schemes. In 1990–91, the HIP allocation of the 57 urban programme authorities included additional resources in the form of inner city special allocations. For 1991–92, my right hon. Friend has decided that these resources can be used more effectively if allocated as part of an enlarged Estate Action programme;
  (c) £50 million for the new rural housing programme;
  (d) £10 million for energy efficiency demonstration projects in the local authority stock;
  (e) £25 million to provide against demand for mandatory grants in excess of authorities' available resources;
  (f) £2 million to cover repairs to defective ex new town stock;
  (ii) In addition to the £185 million of supplementary credit approvals for Estate Action, a further £105 million of annual capital guidelines—ACGs—for Estate Action continuation schemes is being allocated to authorities on the basis of agreed levels of commitment, as part of their main HIP allocations.;
  (iii) The remaining £1,756 million of the main HIP allocations, made up of the £1,343 million of housing ACGs and £413 million of resources for specified capital grant, has been distributed in two stages. First, the distribution to DOE regions has been made in proportion to the sum of the GNI scores of the local authorities in each region. Second, each region's total has been allocated to individual local authorities one half in proportion to each authority's GNI score, and one half following recommendations by the Department's regional housing controllers to reflect local needs and circumstances.

  Under the new capital finance system, the Government issue forward indications of all-service annual capital guidelines for the second and third years of the public expenditure survey period. The indications for 1992–93 and 1993–94 will be issued as early as possible in the new year. However, to assist authorities in planning their housing investment programmes more than one year ahead, my right hon. Friend has decided to promulgate provisional figures for the housing element of the overall calculation with authorities' HIP allocations. The amounts for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are included in each authority's allocation letter.

  Pollution
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made to date on implementing the provisions of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989; what regulations have been laid; and what regulations he expects to lay arising from the Act.

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to the reply, 14 November 1990, c. 163]: We have today published a consultation paper which sets out the basis on which we propose to implement the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989. The consultation paper includes a draft of the regulations

  465
  necessary to give effect to the registration of waste carriers and the procedure under which a waste regulation authority may seize a vehicle used for fly-tipping.

  The registration of waste carriers is the first step in the implementation of the duty of care now contained in section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The main features of the system of registration which we propose to adopt are:
  (a) Scope: The effect of the 1989 Act is to require anyone who transports waste in the course of a business, or in any other way for profit, to be registered. The proposed regulations will require each waste regulation authority to establish and maintain a register of carriers. Each carrier will be required to register with the authority for the area in which his principal place of business is situated. On acceptance, his registration will be valid throughout Great Britain;
  (b) Duration: Each carrier's registration will last for three years. He will be reminded by the regulation authority of the need to apply for renewal of his registration;
  (c) Refusal: A regulation authority will be able to refuse or revoke registration if the carrier or another relevant person has been convicted of a prescribed offence and, in the authority's opinion, it is undesirable for the carrier to be authorised to transport controlled waste. The draft regulations list the offences which we propose to prescribe. A carrier will have the right of appeal against an authority's refusal or revocation of his registration;
  (d) Exemptions: Certain types of carrier will be exempted from the requirement to register. For example, producers in relation to the transport of waste which they have produced;
  (e) Charges: Regulation authorities will be required to charge for their consideration of applications for registration and its renewal. The consultation paper invites comments on the level at which the charges should be set;
  (f) The register: The registers maintained by regulation authorities will contain each carrier's application and entries listing other relevant information. Registers will be open to inspection free of charge by members of the public and must be indexed to enable information to be readily traced;
  (g) Timetable: The 1989 Act and the proposed regulations will be brought into force in two stages. The first stage will come into force in May 1991 and will enable carriers to apply for registration. It is proposed that the second stage should come into force at the same time as the duty of care in April 1992. At that stage, it will become an offence to transport waste without registering and a carrier may be stopped and required to produce his certificate of registration.

  The draft regulations also set out the procedure under which an authority will be able to apply for a warrant to seize a vehicle believed to have been used in the illegal disposal of waste. The purpose of this procedure is to aid the detection and prosecution of those involved in fly-tipping. It is not concerned with the punitive confiscation of vehicles. An authority will be required to return a vehicle to a claimant who satisfactorily establishes his entitlement to it. However, once the authority has established that person's entitlement it will be considerably better placed to ascertain the identity of the person using the vehicle when the waste was disposed of illegally.

  Comments on the draft regulations are invited by 28 February 1991. I am arranging for copies of the consultation paper to be placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the projected figure for the closure of acute medical and surgical beds in the Trent regional health authority by March 1991.
  466
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to Sir Michael Carlisle, the chairman of Trent regional health authority, for this information.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing staff have been made redundant or redeployed; how many support staff have been made redundant; how many full-time posts have been converted to part-time posts; and what increase in administrative jobs there have been with the introduction of the health Bill in the Trent regional health authority last year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provisional figure for administration and clerical staff, including general and senior managers, for Trent region for September 1990 shows an increase of 750 whole-time equivalents. It is not known centrally what proportion of these posts relates to the implementation of the Government's White Paper "Working for Patients". The remaining information requested is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to Sir Michael Carlisle, the chairman of Trent regional health authority, for further information.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to increase the level of financial support to secure units for young offenders in Merseyside.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provision of secure accommodation for children in care, including those who are offenders or alleged offenders, is a matter for individual local authorities. We are always prepared to consider applications for grant aid to fund the capital provision of new secure units where the need for such provision has been identified. We are not aware of current plans to increase the stock of secure accommodation in Merseyside, although we understand local authorities within that region are reviewing the position.

  Myodil
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Myodil still has a product licence for export; and what information he has on whether Glaxo is still exporting it.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For medicinal products exported from the United Kingdom the requirements are set by the importing country. A product licence is not always required for exports.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when Myodil was given a reviewed product licence; on what subsequent dates was the licence renewed; what evidence was presented at the time the reviewed licence was given; and what consideration was given to adverse reactions to Myodil;

  (2) what clinical trials have been carried out on Myodil.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A review application for Myodil was received in the early 1980s. Numerous clinical trials have been conducted with Myodil, examining its value in a number of diagnostic procedures including myelography and ventriculography. A substantial body of evidence in relation to iophendylate, the active ingredient of Myodil, has been published in well over 300 citations spanning a period of over 40 years. This included information relating to adverse reactions associated with the use of Myodil.
  467
  The review included examination of evidence that the product was of an appropriate standard of safety, quality and efficacy. A reviewed product licence, valid for five years, was granted in 1987.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in what ways were the warnings regarding the use of Myodil drawn to the attention of doctors; and whether any steps were taken by his Department or by health authorities to ensure that no doctor giving a spinal injection of Myodil could be unaware of them;

  (2) whether his Department, the Committee on Safety of Medicines or the Committee on the Review of Medicines ever issued warnings to radiologists about adverse reactions to Myodil.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I know of no warnings being issued by the Department, health authorities, the Committee on Safety of Medicines or the Committee on the Review of Medicines to radiologists about adverse reaction to Myodil. Information was already available to them in package inserts and the data sheet which were updated as appropriate in the light of accumulating knowledge. It is for doctors who use a product to ensure that they are fully familiar with the benefits and the risks of any procedure or treatment.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what precise warnings regarding the use of Myodil and the possibility of subsequent adverse reactions were given by the manufacturer, Glaxo; what changes there have been in the warnings; and when they were made.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the package insert dated March 1972, serious adverse reactions were reported to be rare provided that a suitable technique was used; references were made to the removal of Myodil after myelography. The reactions listed included frequent headaches, sometimes severe with vomiting and photo-phobia after myelography, pyrexia, neck stiffness, low back pain and exacerbation of previous symptoms such as those of sciatica. The leaflet also referred to occasional reports of arachnoiditis and literature reports of adhesions and fibrous exudates being found on operation in patients who had at some stage undergone myelography with Myodil.

  In the revised package insert dated November 1973 it was, in addition, recommended that the material be removed by aspiration after the myelography unless required for further study. Information on adverse reactions was enlarged to detail its irritant or allergenic potential. Advice was given that if low back pain persisted or previous symptoms of sciatica were exacerbated, any residual Myodil should be removed and where warranted, hydrocortisone sodium succinate injected intrathecally.

  The data sheets introduced in the 1980s further emphasised the importance of removing as much Myodil as possible at the time of myelography.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the approximate number of people who have developed arachnoiditis after the use of Myodil.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Myelography is often a prelude to surgery for lumbar disc disease. In consequence, it is difficult to disassociate the effects of the original disease from those of the pre-operative myelography or the surgery. The frequency of symptoms compatible with 468
  arachnoiditis varies in different publications and it is clear that there is a poor correlation between symptoms and pathology. For these reasons, it is not possible to estimate the number of people who may have developed arachnoiditis as a result of the use of Myodil.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in the last full year it was available, how many spinal investigations using Myodil were carried out in national health service hospitals;

  (2) what information he has regarding the approximate number of people who have been injected with the spinal dye Myodil since it was marketed to its withdrawal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the types of spinal investigations for which Myodil was used.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Myodil was used for the following spinal investigations:

  (a) Investigation of low back pain.

  (b) Investigation of cervical, dorsal and lumbar disc disease and

  (c) Investigation of suspected compressive abnormalities of the spinal canal.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what sources his Department has received information about adverse reactions to the spinal dye Myodil.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received information on adverse reactions to Myodil from a variety of sources including spontaneous reports from the medical profession, published literature and from the manufacturer.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many yellow card reports there have been indicating a possible association between the spinal dye Myodil and the disease arachnoiditis; and when the first report was received;

  (2) if he will list the adverse reactions associated with the spinal dye Myodil.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines has received a total of 73 yellow card reports in association with the use of Myodil, the first one being in 1970. Arachnoiditis was mentioned in 11 reports, the first in March 1972. In addition to arachnoiditis, the reports have included meningeal reactions which were self-limiting in most cases and local reactions either due to the procedure or the dye such as lumbar pain and leg pain. It is important to stress that the report of a reaction suspected in association with the use of a drug does not necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to withdraw the product licence for Myodil.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Myodil was withdrawn from the market by the company for commercial reasons and the Licensing Authority has been notified of its action. There are no plans to withdraw the product licence for Myodil.
  469
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what date alternatives to Myodil were first available; what they were; and what assessment was made of the degree to which they were risk free.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Myodil was licensed with the following clinical indications:

  Myelography

  Ventriculography:

  visualisation of the third and fourth ventricles and the aqueduct of sylvius.

  Intra-uterine use:

  to outline the foetus prior to intra-uterine blood transfusion.

  The following is a list of products which are licensed for one or more of the same indications:

  Isovist 190

  Isovist 240

  Isovist 300

  Niopam 200 Injection

  Niopam 300 Injection

  Omnipaque 180 mgi/ml Injection

  Amipaque Powder for Injection

  Iopamidol 300 Injection

  The availability of any particular drug is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Every application for a product licence is considered individually and must satisfy the Licensing Authority as to its safety, quality and efficacy before a licence is granted.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures for spinal investigation have been used following the withdrawal of Myodil; and what is their cost relative to Myodil.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The procedures listed have been used for spinal investigations following the withdrawal from use of Myodil:

  (a) the use of water-soluble contrast media.

  (b) Computed tomography without and with contrast media

  and

  (c) Magnetic resonance imaging.

  No costings are available relative to that of using Myodil.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the Committee on Safety of Medicines has at any time discussed Myodil;

  (2) whether any evidence on safety has been presented to the Committee on the Review of Medicines since Myodil was first given its reviewed product licence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Following completion of the review, it would be the Committee on Safety of Medicines rather than the Committee on the Review of Medicines which would be consulted if the known safety profile of a product changed so as to cause alarm. This has not been the case with Myodil.

  Non-pasteurised Milk
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made on the health implications of the consumption of non-pasteurised milk; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has regarding incidents of illness or disease in England and Wales in the last 10 years which can be attributed to the consumption of non-pasteurised milk.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department keeps under continual review the health implications arising from the consump-tion of untreated milk in the light of the incidence of 470
  human illness associated with it. Since 1985, the retail outlets through which untreated milk can be sold in England and Wales have been severely restricted. There was a public consultation in 1989 on whether a total ban on the sale of untreated milk should be introduced. In view of the strong response from consumers who wished to continue to drink untreated milk, the Government decided not to proceed with the ban but to introduce new testing and labelling requirements to ensure that risks to health are minimised and to enable consumers to make an informed choice on whether to drink this product. New test requirements on microbiological examination were introduced on 1 April 1990 and from 1 September 1990 all such milk has been required to carry a clear warning
  "This milk has not been heat-treated and may therefore contain organisms harmful to health".

  This enables consumers to make an informed decision on whether to use the product.

  In the period 1980 to 1989, there were 112 confirmed outbreaks, accounting for 2,776 cases, of food-borne diseases associated with raw cows' milk reported to the public health laboratory service's communicable disease surveillance centre.

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has completed consideration of the case for further guidance to be issued to national health service employees with private practice interests in potential competition with their work in income-generating departments in the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials are currently working on guidance on conflict of interests to be issued to national health service authorities in due course.

  Pressure Sores
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his most up-to-date estimate of the cost to the national health service of treating a pressure sore.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No specific figures or sufficiently detailed data on which to base a realistic estimate are collected centrally.

  Organ Donors
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any financial assistance is provided to the next of kin of organ donors for the cost of the subsequent funeral arrangements.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the total cost of removing a range of organs from a donor whose next of kin has consented to organ donations; how many transplant teams will be involved; and what is the approximate time an operating theatre will be required.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The resources required to remove organs depend on a number of factors such as the donor's medical condition. We are currently considering the possibility of identifying the costs incurred in organ donation.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neuro-intensive care units in
  471
  England and Wales are involved in transplantation; and how many have produced organ donors in the past five years, unit by unit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally in the form requested.

  Gloucester District Health Authority
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the size of population served by Gloucester district health authority in 1979 and 1990, and the proportion of the population aged over 60 years in 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated resident population of Gloucester district health authority at mid-1989, the latest date for which an estimate is available, is 315,800 of whom 21·1 per cent. are aged 60 and over. The estimated population for the same area at mid-1979 is 297,600, of whom 19·3 per cent. were aged 60 and over.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by category the number of staff employed by the Gloucester district health authority(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the figures for 1982 and 1989.

  Due to the reorganisation of health authority boundaries in 1982, information on the number of staff employed by health authorities in Gloucestershire prior to this date is not comparable with later years. The hon. Member may wish to write to Ms. R. Frichie, the chairman of Gloucester health authority, for information in 1990, which is not held centrally.

  NHS Staff in Post by Main Staff Groups at 30 September for 1982 and 1989 Gloucester District Health Authority

  Whole-time Equivalents1

  Main Staff Groups

  1982

  1989

  Medical and Dental2

  170

  130

  Nursing and Midwifery3

  2,330

  2,370

  Professional and Technical (Excluding Works)

  400

  450

  Works

  20

  10

  Maintenance

  120

  80

  Administrative and Clerical (Including Managers)

  530

  590

  Ambulance

  230

  240

  Ancillary

  900

  640

  Total

  4,690

  4,530

  Source: Department of health (SM13) annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10 whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes Permanent Paid Honorary staff and locums. Excludes Consultants and Senior Registrars in Non-Teaching District Health Authorities and Senior Registrars in Teaching District Health Authorities. These still have their contract with the RHA.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide the number of hospital beds available in the Gloucester district health authority area in 1979 and 1990 and the projected total for 1992.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Between 1979 and 1989–90, the average daily number of beds in national health service hospitals in Gloucester district health authority, taking boundary 472
  changes into account, reduced from 2,192 to 1,664. Over the period 1979 to 1989–90 the total number of in-patient discharges and deaths and day case attendances rose by 26 per cent. from 33,000 to 42,000.

  The hon. Member may wish to write to Ms. R. Frichie, the chairman of Gloucester health authority, for estimates for 1992 which are not held centrally.

  Feline Immunodeficiency Virus
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the extent of FIV infection in cats and the potential threat to human health.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Feline immunodeficiency virus—FIV—has been iden-tified in cat populations in numerous countries, but it is most prevalent in free-roaming cats. Most cats recover from the disease but become lifelong carriers of the virus. The infection rate in the limited surveys that have taken place in the United Kingdom has ranged from 5 to 23 per cent. of the cats tested. There is no evidence to link FIV to any human disease.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those husbandry systems he described as unacceptable in his answer to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) of 25 July,Official Report, column 251.

  Mr. Maclean
  The systems were described in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's assessment of pig production systems. The council drew attention in particular to the welfare problems with stall and tether systems for dry sows, the "sweat box" system for keeping growing pigs and multi-tier cages for weaners.

  Expert Advisory Committees
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now establish a register of interests for members of Government expert advisory committees.

  Mr. Maclean
  The interests which members of the Veterinary Products Committee have in the pharmaceuti-cal industry are published each year in its annual report of which copies are in the Library. Independent members of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides are currently appointed on the basis that they have no interests in the pesticides industry. But in order to widen the pool of expertise available we are now considering replacing this restriction by the introduction of a system based on a register of declared interests. We are considering this issue in relation to other committees advising on food safety matters, but have not reached a conclusion.

  Food Surveillance
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure a consumer representative sits on the steering group on food surveillance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The steering group on food surveillance advises the Government on the detailed scientific aspects
  473
  of their food chemical surveillance work. The members of the group are experts who are individually qualified to contribute to this work. Specific consumer protection issues which arise are considered by the Food Advisory Committee which has consumer representatives amongst its members.

  Farmers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which specific EEC regulations exist to allow the provision of financial assistance to farmers adversely affected by structural changes.

  Mr. Curry
  Council regulation 797/85, as amended by Council regulations 3827/85, 2224/86, 1760/87, 1094/88, 1137/88, 591/89, 1609/89, 3808/89, 752/90 and 2176/90 and Commission regulation 2156/89, covers a wide range of structural measures available to farmers generally. Regulations 1696/71, 1035/72, and 1360/78, 389/82 and 1096/88, all of which were also amended by regulation 3808/89, deal with structural measures which are specific to particular sectors or countries other than the United Kingdom. In addition, there is a specific income aids scheme covered by Council regulations 768/89 and 3813/89 as amended by regulation 1279/90.

  Seals and Dolphins
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent the disappearance of seal and dolphins from United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Curry
  Seals are given basic protection against indiscriminate killing by the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. The Government have by order extended this safeguard in the wake of the recent viral epidemic which in particular has affected the common seal. The United Kingdom populations of seals number over 100,000.

  Dolphins are protected against deliberate capture by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act 1934. A United Kingdom initiative led to the adoption by the North sea conference forum earlier this year of a plan concerned with conservation of all species of small cetacean.

  Food Industry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the food industry to reduce the levels of sugar in foods.

  Mr. Curry
  Following the recommendations of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy report on dietary sugars and human disease and the advice contained in the recent Government publication "Eight Guidelines for a Healthy Diet", both of which are available in the Library of the House, the food industry is responding to consumers' demand by providing a wide and increasing range of less sugary foods. We are continuing to encourage the declaration of total sugars as part of nutrition declarations which now commonly appear on food labels so that consumers can make informed choices.

  Irish sea
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for which countries the Hague preference applies in the Irish sea; if he will apply to have 474
  the Hague preference extended to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement about fish quotas in the Irish sea for 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  The Hague preference areas are the northern parts of the United Kingdom which includes Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In the Irish sea, Hague preference is provided for cod, whiting, plaice and sole for both countries but for each of these the trigger point for the preference is higher for the Republic of Ireland.

  The Commission's proposals for TACs and quotas for 1991 for the Irish sea which are set out in an un-numbered explanatory memorandum of 11 December, will be considered by the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 19 December. Under these proposals if they were to be agreed unchanged the Republic of Ireland could invoke Hague preference for cod, whiting and plaice.

  Mink
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each of the last three years his inspectors have supervised, examined or monitored the slaughter of farmed mink by injection.

  Mr. Maclean
  Officers of the state veterinary service monitored the slaughter of mink by injection once in 1988 and once in 1989. At the visits to fur farms so far in 1990, at which slaughter was observed on four occasions, the method used was gassing rather than injection.

  Slaughter
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 316, how he ensures that slaughter of livestock other than in a licensed abattoir is carried out with due care and humanity.

  Mr. Maclean
  On-farm slaughter is an unpredictable event and, as such, cannot be routinely monitored. Officers of the state veterinary service are available to advise on humane slaughter to ensure that livestock owners are able to meet their legal obligations.

  Soil Erosion
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will initiate research into the extent to which soil erosion contributes to the deposition of phosphates in water courses.

  Mr. Curry
  This Department is currently reviewing the need for further research into this matter.

  Soil Survey and Land Research Centre
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reductions in funding and staffing of the Soil Survey are proposed for 1990–91.

  Mr. Curry
  No reduction in funding of the Soil Survey and Land Research Centre has taken place in 1990–91. In the current financial year the Department will be spending £552,800 on research at the Soil Survey and Land Research Centre. Changes in staffing arrangements are regarded as an internal matter to be handled solely by the Soil Survey and Land Research Centre's management.

  Water Erosion
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if a report on the 1989–90 water erosion monitoring scheme will be published;

  (2) if he proposes to continue his Department's water erosion monitoring scheme in 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  The research project into the control of water erosion in arable crops, began in 1988–89 and the first year's work is being evaluated. The project is due for review in 1992, when the results will be published.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the result of the laboratory test for spongiform ence-phalopathy carried out on the antelope calf which died at London zoo on 12 November.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 November 1990, c. 441]: The examination of the brain tissue of the greater kudu put down at London zoo on 13 November has been carried out by the central veterinary laboratory and a spongiform encephalopathy has been confirmed.

  The animal was born in April 1989 and was the offspring of a greater kudu in which a similar encephalopathy was confirmed in August 1989. Investigations into the cause of the disease in this kudu are continuing.

  Pentobarbitone
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations govern the use of pentobarbitone; and what restrictions are placed on its purchase, ownership and use.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  Pentobarbitone is a barbiturate compound which is used as a sedative and anaesthetic in clinical and veterinary practice. It is used particularly in the killing and putting down of animals. Supply and possession of the drug are subject to restrictions under both the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Medicines Act 1968. The effect is that it may be purchased for professional use by medical, dental and

  Net official development assistance 1985 (£ million)

  DAC countries

  Angola

  Botswana

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Swaziland

  Tanzania

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Total

  Australia

  —

  0·35

  0·21

  0·35

  1·07

  0·02

  0·25

  3·13

  1·67

  3·18

  10·24

  Austria

  1·06

  —

  —

  —

  2·20

  —

  —

  0·32

  0·19

  0·35

  4·12

  Belgium

  0·10

  0·03

  0·04

  0·02

  1·00

  0·03

  0·07

  2·81

  1·03

  0·41

  5·54

  Canada

  1·37

  3·79

  3·96

  3·32

  3·68

  -0·89

  3·39

  23·44

  8·42

  13·37

  63·85

  Denmark

  0·69

  1·70

  1·33

  3·95

  4·67

  —

  -0·01

  28·56

  4·75

  4·60

  50·23

  Finland

  0·16

  0·02

  0·36

  0·02

  2·43

  1·06

  —

  12·82

  9·11

  3·44

  29·41

  France

  1·04

  0·26

  0·16

  2·49

  15·65

  —

  0·54

  1·13

  0·52

  4·07

  25·23

  Germany

  1·91

  10·17

  6·29

  9·15

  3·72

  1·07

  1·34

  25·37

  14·45

  21·06

  94·52

  Ireland

  —

  —

  2·27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·14

  1·84

  0·27

  6·52

  Italy

  12·58

  0·01

  0·56

  0·04

  21·57

  —

  0·23

  26·86

  1·00

  5·76

  68·62

  Japan

  —

  0·02

  0·52

  3·76

  3·36

  —

  0·58

  21·97

  31·82

  6·59

  68·61

  Netherlands

  6·21

  1·62

  0·62

  2·01

  19·15

  0·09

  0·33

  28·48

  12·10

  13·68

  84·28

  New Zealand

  —

  0·01

  —

  0·01

  —

  —

  —

  0·04

  0·01

  0·01

  0·07

  Norway

  0·23

  8·53

  0·59

  0·35

  10·38

  0·20

  0·14

  35·04

  12·87

  6·43

  80·76

  Sweden

  14·43

  5·65

  5·31

  —

  26·20

  —

  —

  37·78

  17·65

  18·15

  125·18

  Switzerland

  0·65

  0·03

  0·52

  0·03

  2·72

  —

  0·02

  4·67

  3·40

  1·67

  13·70

  United Kingdom

  0·16

  4·89

  2·35

  10·68

  7·26

  0·60

  0·59

  17·43

  17·59

  18·98

  80·54

  United States of America

  5·40

  8·49

  14·66

  4·63

  36·26

  —

  6·17

  15·43

  27·77

  43·20

  161·99

  DAC total

  45·99

  45·56

  39·76

  40·81

  167·30

  2·19

  13·64

  287·42

  166·19

  165·21

  974·06

  476
  veterinary practitioners and by others against a prescription issued by a practitioner; and any person may lawfully possess the drug for medical, dental or veterinary purposes in accordance with the directions of a practitioner. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the unlawful possession of pentobarbitone is punishable, on indictment, by up to five years' imprisonment or a fine—or both.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Vietnam (Aid)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the restrictions on aid to Vietnam; and if he has proposals to lift them.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government have no direct aid programme for Vietnam and no immediate plans to begin one. However, I am keeping this question under review. We provide financial support to British non-governmental organisations for projects in Vietnam through our joint funding scheme, under which we meet 50 per cent. of costs, and through a special scheme for two northern provinces of Vietnam from which most of the boat people came, under which the Overseas Development Administration meets 80 per cent. of costs. The European Community is now preparing to provide reintegration assistance for boat people returnees and the Goverment will contribute to the cost.

  Southern Africa
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid each OECD donor has given to the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference and for which Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference programme since 1985.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Full details of other donors' assistance to the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference is not readily available. Net official development assistance from OECD donors to the member states of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference from 1985 to 1988, the last year for which figures are available, is as set out in the tables.
  477

  Net official development assistance 1986 (£'million)

  DAC countries

  Angola

  Botswana

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Swaziland

  Tanzania

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Total

  Australia

  —

  0·30

  0·16

  0·26

  2·23

  0·03

  0·11

  2·03

  0·29

  1·19

  7·47

  Austria

  0·82

  0·01

  0·01

  —

  0·74

  0·05

  0·01

  0·49

  0·25

  0·37

  3·10

  Belgium

  0·12

  0·11

  0·04

  0·02

  0·19

  —

  0·42

  2·18

  0·99

  0·54

  5·21

  Canada

  2·56

  5·17

  1·19

  0·98

  3·61

  —

  1·04

  18·54

  9·10

  7·62

  56·34

  Denmark

  3·06

  4·57

  1·25

  2·37

  9·37

  —

  1·86

  37·44

  6·59

  6·50

  82·59

  Finland

  0·76

  0·27

  0·29

  0·10

  3·64

  1·61

  0·01

  19·72

  11·33

  2·93

  45·01

  France

  4·26

  1·04

  0·27

  2·60

  19·48

  0·03

  0·67

  1·36

  2·24

  3·49

  40·08

  Germany

  2·82

  8·50

  8·17

  19·83

  7·78

  1·38

  1·96

  30·68

  22·19

  27·83

  148·34

  Ireland

  —

  0·07

  2·48

  0·01

  0·01

  —

  0·03

  1·90

  1·90

  0·44

  7·71

  Italy

  21·52

  0·18

  0·86

  1·58

  37·98

  0·30

  0·47

  19·16

  9·29

  3·52

  107·29

  Japan

  0·32

  0·84

  0·43

  10·98

  10·57

  —

  0·35

  23·87

  35·61

  2·96

  97·20

  Netherlands

  11·44

  3·15

  0·67

  3·83

  24·59

  0·15

  0·53

  41·42

  32·36

  16·48

  152·27

  New Zealand

  —

  0·05

  0·01

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·05

  —

  0·02

  0·15

  Norway

  0·20

  7·98

  0·49

  0·03

  21·69

  0·16

  —

  48·98

  19·58

  11·15

  124·72

  Sweden

  10·12

  11·11

  4·56

  —

  46·96

  —

  1·67

  72·56

  30·29

  14·22

  216·60

  Switzerland

  0·89

  0·13

  0·60

  0·01

  2·18

  —

  —

  13·11

  0·14

  2·37

  21·98

  United Kingdom

  0·31

  5·61

  3·75

  7·85

  6·18

  0·74

  2·31

  11·53

  29·99

  10·46

  89·05

  United States of America

  4·77

  6·82

  12·96

  7·50

  20·46

  —

  5·46

  5·46

  25·92

  18·41

  121·88

  DAC total

  63·99

  55·91

  38·19

  57·95

  217·66

  4·45

  16·90

  350·49

  238·07

  130·49

  1,328·00

  Net official development assistance 1987 (£'million)

  DAC countries

  Angola

  Botswana

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Swaziland

  Tanzania

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Total

  Australia

  0·01

  0·32

  0·02

  0·08

  2·89

  0·01

  0·37

  1·21

  0·22

  0·49

  7·10

  Austria

  0·86

  0·01

  0·02

  —

  2·58

  —

  0·34

  1·64

  1·40

  0·17

  8·44

  Belgium

  0·08

  0·92

  0·01

  0·02

  0·59

  —

  0·21

  1·29

  4·42

  0·60

  10·30

  Canada

  0·28

  6·49

  1·52

  4·58

  14·75

  0·03

  1·06

  21·99

  15·66

  6·18

  91·70

  Denmark

  3·68

  11·34

  0·98

  7·12

  9·06

  1·83

  3·92

  30·02

  2·14

  4·99

  94·90

  Finland

  1·70

  0·13

  0·18

  0·14

  5·91

  3·81

  0·02

  20·86

  16·05

  4·35

  67·20

  France

  2·28

  1·71

  1·62

  3·03

  24·02

  0·09

  0·20

  3·15

  0·95

  8·95

  58·15

  Germany

  3·66

  13·02

  6·43

  18·05

  18·10

  2·42

  2·26

  36·75

  22·71

  27·14

  190·30

  Ireland

  —

  0·04

  2·70

  0·01

  0·01

  0·01

  0·04

  1·86

  2·02

  0·68

  9·31

  Italy

  17·32

  0·03

  0·84

  2·39

  82·57

  —

  0·45

  119·45

  22·04

  15·92

  329·97

  Japan

  0·84

  0·06

  1·32

  31·44

  10·73

  —

  0·10

  28·10

  25·43

  5·38

  130·73

  Netherlands

  9·51

  3·29

  1·04

  6·61

  30·90

  0·34

  0·44

  45·24

  18·03

  21·53

  173·10

  New Zealand

  —

  0·12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·07

  —

  0·07

  0·33

  Norway

  0·54

  10·37

  0·16

  0·09

  21·55

  0·06

  0·29

  45·91

  19·49

  13·44

  141·45

  Sweden

  14·50

  8·68

  4·97

  0·20

  33·24

  —

  0·16

  45·67

  15·52

  20·08

  182·07

  Switzerland

  0·49

  0·02

  0·84

  0·39

  14·28

  —

  0·04

  10·35

  0·98

  0·58

  35·36

  United Kingdom

  0·26

  6·51

  3·88

  19·31

  21·55

  0·97

  1·24

  23·76

  23·49

  9·98

  140·26

  United States of America

  3·66

  12·81

  11·59

  10·37

  33·56

  —

  7·32

  0·61

  23·75

  21·36

  154·28

  DAC total

  59·66

  75·87

  38·13

  103·83

  326·29

  9·55

  18·12

  438·92

  211·31

  161·89

  1,824·94

  Net official development assistance 1988 (£'million)

  DAC countries

  Angola

  Botswana

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Swaziland

  Tanzania

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Total

  Australia

  —

  0·84

  —

  —

  6·15

  —

  —

  1·67

  1·76

  0·76

  15·35

  Austria

  0·36

  0·01

  0·02

  0·01

  0·75

  —

  —

  1·02

  0·38

  0·16

  3·72

  Belgium

  0·21

  0·06

  0·01

  0·06

  0·94

  —

  0·25

  3·76

  2·77

  0·69

  12·03

  Canada

  3·34

  3·46

  1·27

  3·19

  16·70

  —

  0·98

  17·04

  17·06

  8·81

  98·72

  Denmark

  2·39

  3·93

  2·62

  2·55

  8·98

  —

  2·19

  43·68

  4·65

  6·94

  107·09

  Finland

  0·73

  0·21

  0·10

  0·04

  10·30

  2·30

  0·01

  37·74

  13·38

  1·75

  91·46

  France

  3·26

  0·75

  2·35

  1·97

  13·94

  0·01

  0·02

  1·48

  0·83

  6·16

  42·28

  Germany

  4·03

  8·04

  5·95

  15·28

  13·80

  4·36

  1·58

  38·21

  29·19

  22·53

  196·46

  Ireland

  —

  —

  1·95

  0·03

  0·04

  —

  0·06

  2·08

  1·57

  0·33

  8·31

  Italy

  13·66

  1·04

  0·19

  2·97

  160·98

  —

  2·30

  43·19

  22·17

  6·20

  347·24

  Japan

  -1·12

  11·53

  0·67

  21·41

  8·32

  —

  0·02

  54·29

  50·86

  14·67

  220·74

  Netherlands

  6·98

  2·43

  —

  6·07

  27·71

  0·71

  1·07

  44·28

  14·47

  12·21

  159·32

  New Zealand

  —

  0·03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·21

  0·02

  —

  0·35

  Norway

  2·53

  10·12

  2·52

  1·34

  25·09

  0·06

  0·07

  44·38

  22·59

  13·32

  167·66

  Sweden

  18·33

  11·86

  3·64

  0·04

  46·32

  —

  —

  56·24

  20·09

  12·96

  232·88

  Switzerland

  0·97

  —

  0·89

  0·02

  3·62

  —

  —

  8·13

  0·12

  0·69

  19·83

  United Kingdom

  0·51

  7·08

  4·88

  29·79

  29·26

  2·03

  -1·39

  33·20

  16·59

  17·06

  191·03

  United States of America

  3·37

  8·98

  11·79

  16·84

  33·68

  —

  5·61

  8·42

  10·11

  5·61

  143·48

  DAC total

  59·54

  70·38

  38·84

  101·60

  406·60

  9·47

  12·77

  439·02

  228·60

  130·87

  2,057·94

  478 479
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the EC has given to SADCC since 1985; and for which programmes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  SADCC's allocation under the sixth European development fund—1985–1990—is 141 mecu (about £99 million). Sixty-nine mecu of this has been committed so far, to the following projects:

  Karonga-Ibanda Road

  Beira Port Rehabilitation

  Tazama Pipeline Rehabilitation

  Land/Water Management Training Centre

  Mananga Agricultural Management Training

  Inchope-Machipanda Road

  In addition SADCC member countries were allocated a total of 776 mecu—about £543 million—in their EDF VI national indicative programmes. Under the seventh European development fund—1990–1995—SADCC has received an initial allocation of 121 mecu—about £85 million—to be focused mainly on transport, food and agriculture and SADCC member countries have been allocated a total of a further 1,007 mecu—£705 million —in their national indicative programmes.

  Poland
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all aid currently being given by the United Kingdom to Poland.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 10 December at column 281.

  UNRWA
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much Her Majesty's Government have donated to the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The amounts are as follows:

  £ million

  1979

  4·4

  1980

  4·5

  1981

  5·0

  1982

  5·0

  1983

  5·0

  1984

  6·0

  1985

  5·0

  1986

  5·0

  1987

  15·25

  1988

  5·25

  1989

  25·623

  1990

  25·64

  1 Includes a total of £1·25 million earmarked for Lebanon.

  2 Includes a total of £263,000 for a feasibility study commissioned by UNRWA from Llewelyn-Davies Planning Limited.

  Kurdish Refugees
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid Her Majesty's Government have provided to Kurdish refugees for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As I informed the House on 2 April at column 415, the Government have provided two grants
  480
  totalling £550,000 to assist Iraqi Kurds in Turkey and ethnic Turkish refugees from Bulgaria. The first grant of £250,000 was made in November 1988 and the second of £300,000 in July 1989. Both grants were provided through the Turkish Red Crescent Society. There have been no further developments.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid Her Majesty's Government have provided to Palestinian and other local refugees in Lebanon for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The humanitarian assistance that we have provided is as follows:

  £ thousands

  Via British NGOs

  Via ICRC

  Via UNRWA

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  4

  —

  —

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  —

  100

  —

  1983

  —

  400

  —

  1984

  —

  500

  1,000

  1985

  1

  500

  —

  1986

  8

  150

  —

  1987

  —

  400

  250

  1988

  —

  200

  —

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  A proportion of the United Kingdom annual contribution to UNRWA's general programmes is also spent in Lebanon. Details of that spending are, I regret, unavailable.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Leaflets
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were his reasons for producing the leaflet, "Get It Right Before You Go"; and whether a request for such a leaflet was received from consumer or tourist groups.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The "Get It Right Before You Go" leaflets are a Foreign and Commonwealth Office initiative. They aim to improve understanding of what consuls can do and to encourage self-help, including adequate insurance and safeguarding of money, passports and tickets by British holidaymakers in order to reduce common, avoidable problems.

  Reducing the pressure on consular staff overseas enables them to respond quickly and comprehensively to British nationals needing help in real emergencies.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated annual cost of producing the consular leaflet, "Get It Right Before You Go".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Design and printing costs for the new leaflet "Checklist for Travellers—Get It Right Before You Go" will be £28,000. Additionally, the Post Office's
  481
  charges for distributing the leaflet with the estimated 2·2 million new British visitor's passports issued annually will be £1 32,000.

  Reprint and distribution costs for the original leaflet "Consular Assistance Abroad—Get It Right Before You Go", mainly issued through travel agents, are around £20,000.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether consular services abroad are described in leaflets or documents available from his Department other than in the leaflet, "Get It Right Before You Go".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are two "Get It Right Before You Go" leaflets: "Consular Assistance Abroad" and "Checklist for Travellers" and both give general travel advice. The former also explains what a consul can and cannot do for a Briton in trouble abroad, while the latter concentrates on a few key messages, including adequate insurance and safeguarding valuables.

  Consular services abroad are also described in the annual review of consular work, but this is not targeted at British holidaymakers and does not include travel guidance.

  South Atlantic Fisheries
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to impose a 12-mile fishing limit around South Georgia.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The extension of the territorial sea of South Georgia to 12 nautical miles came into effect on 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the agreements signed with other nations to fish in the south Atlantic.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There are no agreements to fish in the south Atlantic between the United Kingdom or its dependent territories and other states. Some agreements have, however, been signed between the Governments of certain dependent territories and private fishing companies or associations.

  In addition there are European Community agree-ments, entered into on behalf of all member states, which have been signed with Angola, Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Guinea Equatorial, Ivory Coast, Sao Tome and Principle, and Senegal. Copies of proposals for these agreements will have been made available to the House through the normal procedure for European Community documents and the final agreements appear in the Official Journal of the European Community.

  Punjab
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Indian Government concerning human rights violations in the Punjab; what information his Department has as to the number of people arrested, injured or killed by security forces in the last two years; and if he will make a statement.
  482
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We support the Indian Government in their efforts to deal with a serious challenge from terrorist violence in the Punjab. We have regularly encouraged the use of maximum restraint and the need to respect human rights, most recently on 11 December.

  Up-to-date official figures for deaths and detentions are not available. Estimates vary. We believe some 1,218 people have been killed by the security forces between January and November this year, and some 3,520 by terrorists.

  Burma
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the Australian proposal for international economic sanctions against Burma/Myanmar's military regime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I assume that the hon. Lady is referring to United States congressional proposals. We are discussing these and other ideas for expressing our displeasure at the anti-democratic action of the Burmese military regime with our EC partners and other like-minded countries.

  Thai-Burma Border
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the number of displaced people on the Thai-Burma border; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The latest border population figures are 44,539 persons on 1 November 1990. These figures were provided by a group of non-government organisations providing humanitarian assistance to refugees and displaced persons on the Thai-Burmese border, at the request of the Thai Government.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the printed testimony given to the hearing of the House Foreign Affairs sub-committee on Asian and Pacific affairs of the United States Congress on 2 October, concerning the present status of Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The official record of the hearing to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be available at the end of January 1991; this Department will then obtain a copy.

  British Embassy, Kuwait
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will withdraw the remaining staff of the British embassy in Kuwait.

  Mr. Hurd
  Now that the overwhelming majority of the British community has been evacuated from Kuwait we have decided to withdraw our remaining embassy staff. We
  483
  have asked them to prepare to leave within the next week. Thereafter we shall no longer be able to provide assistance to any remaining British nationals. We therefore strongly urge them to leave Kuwait.

  We continue to recognise the legitimate Government of Kuwait, who have been informed of our decision to withdraw the embassy staff. We utterly reject Iraq's illegal occupation and annexation of Kuwait.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Primary School Enrolments
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present trend in primary school enrolments; and what projections there are for primary school enrolments in each of the next five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Primary school enrolments have risen steadily over the past five years. Latest projections, however, indicate that there will be a slight decline over the next five years. The figures, at January each year, are as follows:

  Actual total enrolment

  1986

  181,087

  1987

  181,893

  1988

  182,499

  1989

  184,241

  1990

  185,767

  Projected enrolment

  1991

  185,590

  1992

  185,030

  1993

  185,410

  1994

  185,150

  1995

  184,280

  Detention
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many arrests have been made under the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order since 1 January; how many persons have been detained for more than 24 hours under the said order; how many warrants of further detention have been issued under article 44 of the said order; and in how many cases access to legal advice has been delayed under article 59(8) of the said order.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows for the period 1 January 1990 to 31 October 1990:

  Number

  Number of arrests under the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1989

  18,428

  Number of persons detained for more than 24 hours under the Order

  368

  Number of warrants of further detention under Article 44 of the Order

  14

  Cases of delayed access to legal advice under Article 59(8) of the Order

  21

  AIDS
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have died from AIDS in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of persons with AIDS who are known to have died each year in Northern Ireland since 1985 is given in the table:

  Number

  1985

  1

  1986

  —

  1987

  1

  1988

  1

  1989

  7

  1990

  18

  1 to 30 November

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many, and what percentage of, pre-school children in Northern Ireland are enrolled in maintained, integrated and controlled nursery schools in Northern Ireland; and whether he proposes to fund an increase in nursery school provision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  January 1990

  Maintained pupils

  1,091

  Percentage1

  2·0

  Integrated pupils

  0

  Percentage1

  0

  Controlled pupils

  3,762

  Percentage1

  6·9

  Total pupils

  4,853

  Percentage1

  8·9

  1 The number of pupils as a percentage of the 3 and 4-year-old population.

  Limited resources for school building have made it necessary to give priority to provision for children of compulsory school age. It has not therefore been possible to provide an expansion of nursery provision apart from some limited growth in north and west Belfast under the "Making Belfast Work" initiative. I can offer no immediate prospect of change.

  European Community Funds
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much money has been expended in the Ballymoney borough council area out of the various EEC funds;

  (2) how much money has been expended in the Moyle council area out of the various EEC funds;

  (3) how much money has been expended in the Ballymena borough council area out of the various EEC funds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are numerous sources of EC grant and while, in most cases, figures for the Province as
  485
  a whole are available they are not analysed on the basis sought by the hon. Gentleman. Consideration is, however, being given to how such information might be made available in relation to future payments from the EC structural funds.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the quantities of(a) spent nuclear fuel, (b) cladding for spent nuclear fuel and (c) nuclear waste that have been imported into the United Kingdom for each year from 1970 to 1989 inclusive; if he will give projected levels of imports for each category for each year from 1990 to 2000 inclusive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  British Nuclear Fuels plc and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority have imported some 4,000 tonnes of uranium as spent fuel since reprocessing began in the mid-1960s. They do not import nuclear waste, nor do they import cladding other than as part of the fuel. The projected levels are a commercial matter for the reprocessing companies.

  Connection Charges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairmen of the 12 regional distribution companies about the future level of connection charges for new houses.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. It is for the Director General of Electricity Supply to adjudicate where disputes arise as to the reasonableness of connection costs.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what estimate he has made of the effects of the reported delays in the completion of the secondary safety computer system for the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor nuclear power station on(a) the non-fossil fuel obligation and (b) the external financing limit of Nuclear Electric;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the chairman of Nuclear Electric concerning delays in completing the software for the operational secondary safety systems at the Sizewell B nuclear power station;

  (3) what information he has received from the nuclear installations inspectorate about delays in the development of the operational secondary safety computer system for the Sizewell B nuclear power station.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The proposed protection system for Sizewell B consists of a computer-based primary protection system and a non-computer based secondary system. The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate is satisfied with the progress being made in the development of both systems.

  The construction of Sizewell B power station is a matter for Nuclear Electric plc. The company has informed me that the construction of the station is proceeding ahead of schedule.

  "The Energy Alternative"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of "The Energy Alternative" by Walter C. Patterson published by Boxtree Books.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A copy of this book is already held in the Department's library.

  Gas Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what fees have been paid to Touche Ross by way of(a) retainers and (b) specific services in connection with its duties as auditors to the flotation of British Gas in each year since its flotation; and what proportion of such payments is related to services provided in the detection of illegal multiple share applications;

  (2) what fees he has paid to the National Westminster bank registrar's department by way of (a) retainers and (b) specific payments in conection with suspected illegal multiple share applications for British Gas in each year since its flotation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions since the flotation of British Gas in 1986, National Westminster bank registrar's depart-ment has provided services to his Department in respect of suspected illegal multiple share applications.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The registrars have been pleased to assist the police, the Department and the Crown prosecution service as necessary. It would involve disproportionate cost to establish the precise number of times on which assistance has been provided.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his total estimate of the total number of the individual applicants for shares in each of the 12 regional electricity companies grouped by head of household jointly with spouse and dependent children and other resident dependent relatives.

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

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 10 December, when he expects to be in a position to provide statistics for the numbers of shareholders resident within the franchise area of each regional electricity company and the percentage of the total share capital owned by them.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We made available 54·6 per cent. of the total share capital in each company to the United Kingdom public. Of this, the percentages allocated to employees and preferential customers applying on priority forms are set out in the table. Applications received from customers, other than on priority application forms, cannot be separately identified and are therefore not included in the figures.
  487

  Number of customer and employee priority applications '000s

  Percentage of shares available to the public allocated to customers and employees

  Eastern Electricity

  603

  53·4

  East Midlands Electricity

  303

  37·5

  London Electricity

  289

  36·0

  Manweb

  187

  52·0

  Midland Electricity

  308

  45·6

  Northern Electric

  165

  53·3

  Norweb

  306

  49·9

  Seeboard

  389

  58·9

  Southern Electric

  472

  48·4

  South Wales Electricity

  109

  47·6

  South Western Electricity

  227

  57·5

  Yorkshire Electricity

  256

  42·0

  Subsidence (Compensation)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive British Coal's annual report on the administration of the subsidence compensa-tion scheme for 1989–90.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have now received this report from British Coal and have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Detection
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to improve the crime detection rate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The crime detection rate for the most serious offences, including violence against the person and sexual offences, remains high, at around 75 per cent. I shall continue to encourage chief officers to target their resources on serious and other crimes of particular concern to the public, although they must decide their own priorities and methods in the light of local circumstances. The police also need the help of the community to reduce the opportunities for crime, and I shall continue to encourage public involvement in crime prevention.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the clear-up rates of all crimes, violent crimes and homicides were in the Holmfirth and Huddersfield police districts for each year since 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information collected centrally relates to police force areas and is published annually; for 1989, in tables 2.19, 2.20 and 2.21 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales"—Cm 1322. More detailed statistics relating to Holmfirth and Huddersfield are contained in the annual report of the chief constable for West Yorkshire. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give, for the last date figures are available, the number of remand prisoners held in police cells in Greater Manchester; and if he will make a statement.
  488
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yesterday there were 283 prisoners in cells of the Greater Manchester police. Of these, 73 were convicted and 210 were unconvicted.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the law on Sunday trading in those areas where there is common agreement among all interested parties.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Although there is agreement in principle between the interested parties in a few specific areas, there is still no agreement on specific proposals; and on Sunday trading as a whole, wide divisions of opinion remain.

  Prison System
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the British prison system over the next five years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The current medium-term plans of the prison service for England and Wales are to reduce overcrowding by bringing the average number of prison places into line with the average prison population, and by using all accommodation to its proper extent; to seek to ensure all cells have integral sanitation or access to night sanitation; to extend regime opportunities by increasing hours of prisoner occupation, education and association; and to complete and consolidate improvements in management and staff performance. These plans are kept under review and are formally re-examined annually.

  Plans for the prison services in Scotland and Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Football Ticket Touts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to extend the proposed legislation outlawing ticket touting at football matches to other sporting events.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. We agree with Lord Justice Taylor that the considerations are different. Touting at football matches creates public order problems because it encourages supporters without tickets to attend games, often leading to obstruction and disorder, and it undermines the segregation of supporters of different teams. Touting elsewhere may be offensive, but is not a serious threat to public order.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss crime prevention initiatives.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting the Association of Chief Police Officers' representatives shortly and expects to discuss a wide range of issues with them, including the fight against crime.

  Charity Legislation
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had concerning the Woodfield report on charity legislation.
  489
  Mr. John Patten
  A wide range of charities and other interested bodies and individuals made helpful comments on the Woodfield report. The Government took account of those comments when preparing last year's White Paper on charities and will, of course, give further attention to them when preparing legislation.

  Drinking Clubs
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to review the laws appertaining to illegal drinking establishments with a view to granting confiscatory powers for properties and moneys and increasing penalties for those found guilty.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to review the penalties for selling liquor without a licence. Recent sentencing practice suggests that the current maximum penalty of a level 4 fine, which the Criminal Justice Bill will increase from £1,000 to £2,500, and six months' imprisonment adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. There is already a power to order the forfeiture of property used in the commission of such an offence and to disqualify the offender from holding a licence upon a second or subsequent conviction.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide funds to the police for the purchase of a computer that can age people's photographs and thus help identify someone who has been missing for several years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The provision of equipment for individual police forces is a matter for police authorities. The E-Fit computer system, which was developed by the Home Office, enables a skilled operator to change the appearance of both facial composites and original photographs. The Home Office is currently considering the production of a guide to assist police officers in the use of E-Fit to age faces.

  Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the Brixton remand prisoner Mr. Lorrain Osman; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Mr. Osman is not a remand prisoner. He was committed to custody on 1 June 1987 to await his return to Hong Kong. The case remains unresolved because of the series of appeals which Mr. Osman has initiated against his extradition. A fugitive cannot be surrendered while proceedings on an appeal in this country are pending.

  Since November, the Home Office has received about 20 letters relating to the case.

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist for the provision of an occupational health service for employees 490
  within his Department, stating (a) how many staff are employed to provide occupational health services, (b) how many of those staff are qualified nurses and (c) how many employees work in his Department in total.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  On 5 December 1990 the Home Office had 45,766 permanent staff. Occupational health services for these staff are provided, on a payment basis, by the civil service occupational health service which employs some 100 fully qualified occupational health professionals —doctors, nurses and hygiene and safety advisers—in a network of regional offices.

  Police Forces
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the size of the police force, both uniformed and civilian staff, in the Holmfirth and Huddersfield police districts in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The tables show the police strength in Holmfirth and Huddersfield for December 1979 and November 1990.

  Holmfield Sub-division1

  Strength

  Police

  Civilian

  1979 (December)

  92

  8

  1990 (November)

  103

  23

  Huddersfield Sub-division1

  Strength

  Police

  Civilian

  1979 (December)

  293

  96

  1990 (November)

  284

  102

  1 The boundaries of both sub-divisions have changed since 1979 and therefore the manpower figures are not directly comparable.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to(a) the report of Mr. Geoffrey Dear, inspector of constabulary for the midlands, on the state of Derbyshire police and (b) the extent to which the efficiency of the force has been influenced by controls imposed by Derbyshire county council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on 5 December 1990 at columns 117–18.

  Wormhoudt Massacre
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a report from the German prosecutor following the interviews with survivors of the Wormhoudt massacre on 5 October 1989 and other statements provided on 20 June.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has not received a report from the German prosecutor, but the German Ministry of Justice has undertaken to keep the British Government informed of the prosecutor's eventual decision.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last year the broadcasting unit of his Department has made contact with(a) the BBC and (b) the IBA; and what subjects were raised.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Officials from the broadcasting department of the Home Office have been in touch with the BBC and the IBA regularly throughout the year. A wide range of broadcasting subjects were discussed, including matters connected with the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will offer to allow the 111 Vietnamese boat people whose boat was destroyed by the Hong Kong authorities to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government have agreed to resettle a further 2,000 Vietnamese refugees over the three years to June 1992. We will he happy to consider the cases of any of the 111 who meet the criteria for selection to come to the United Kingdom under this programme.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to send to all recipients of mobility allowance over 18 years of age a reminder that they are eligible for a proxy or postal vote at elections without the need of supporting signatures of qualified persons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We are not aware that there is a general lack of knowledge among electors who receive a mobility allowance about their absent voting rights. However, we are considering ways in which the provisions allowing an absent vote both for an indefinite period and at a particular election might be made more widely known.

  Racism
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to strengthen the legislation against racist literature.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Public Order Act 1986 strengthened the relevant legislation. We have no current plans for further amendment to it.

  LSD and Strychnine
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department and the police are taking to discover the source of self-adhesive stickers laced with LSD and strychnine which are being offered to children; and whether anybody has yet been apprehended for offering these substances.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the national drugs intelligence unit and the police that they have not been able to find any evidence whatsoever to support claims that 492
  such stickers exist. In the absence of such evidence, the police here and in other countries believe that circular letters claiming that such stickers are being offered to children are a hoax, although they remain ready to examine any evidence which is put to them.

  Channel 3
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department intends to abandon the contiguity rule when implementing the ownership restrictions relating to Channel 3 franchises under schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As I made clear in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 4 December at columns 85–87, we intend, through the supplementary ownership rules, to allow one body to hold a controlling interest in two regional Channel 3 licences as long as they are not both large, and for this purpose nine of the 15 licence areas will be designated! as large. When we originally announced our proposals on ownership of Channel 3 licences we envisaged designating only five or six licence areas as large, but providing in addition that co-ownership of contiguous areas would not be permitted. We believe on further consideration that a contiguity rule could give rise to unintended problems and that the need for such a rule can in large part be met by designating a higher number of "large" areas as we propose.

  Asylum
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the average length of time taken to determine applications for asylum made(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) at posts overseas.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer II December 1990]: Information is given in the following table.

  Estimated average length of time between the receipt of an asylum application and the decision, for cases decided in the third quarter of 1990

  Months

  (a) Applications made in the United Kingdom1

  13·5

  (b) Applications made at British posts overseas, and referred2 to the Home Office for decision

  14

  1 At ports or after entry.

  2 Excludes certain applications by nationals of Afghanistan and Somalia to the British High Commission in, respectively, New Delhi and Dhaka, which are being processed locally. Information on the average decision time for these cases is not currently available centrally.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each month since September 1989 to the nearest available date how many applications made within the United Kingdom for asylum were made(a) by applicants in the United Kingdom with leave, (b) by overstayers and (c) by alleged illegal entrants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 12 December 1990]: Information is given in the table. Reliable estimates of the status of applicants after May 1990 are not yet available.
  493

  Applications12 for asylum in the United Kingdom made after entry, by status of principal applicant September 1989 to May 1990

  1989

  1990

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  Status of principal applicant at time of application

  Within existing leave

  535

  610

  420

  515

  600

  410

  440

  500

  475

  Overstayers3

  60

  70

  60

  40

  65

  75

  80

  80

  115

  Illegal entrant

  50

  30

  50

  45

  85

  30

  50

  95

  105

  Information not available

  80

  90

  50

  75

  150

  170

  185

  65

  80

  Total

  720

  800

  580

  670

  900

  685

  760

  735

  775

  1 Provisonal figures: those for 1990 may understate because of delays in recording. Figures rounded to nearest 5.

  2Including dependants applying at the same time, or subsequently to date.

  3 Including those who were subject to deportation action as an overstayer or on other grounds.

  Police Officers (Homicides)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homicides of police officers have been reported in England and Wales since the passage of the Homicide Act 1957; and how many cases have resulted in conviction for murder.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 12 December 1990]: Information on the number of homicides of police officers is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales"—table 4.4(a) and 4.4(b) in the latest issue for 1989, Cm. 1322—copies of which are available in the Library.

  During the period 1958–1989, there were 51 homicides of police officers reported in England and Wales. Of these, 27 resulted in conviction for murder.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exports (Iraq)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications his Department has had with the firms, Walter Somers Ltd. and Sheffield Forgemasters Ltd., regarding the export of goods to Iraq.

  Mr. Lilley
  My Department has had three approaches from Walter Somers Ltd. and two letters from Forgemasters Engineering about equipment now known to be for the Iraqi long-range gun project.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has as to which overall contracts the gun components for Iraq were part of; and whether any such contracts were promoted by his Department through the British Overseas Trade Board export intelligence service.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: Orders for components of the Iraqi long-range gun used the number of a genuine petrochemical project known as PC2. Genuine orders for project PC2 were promoted through the BOTB's export intelligence service, but none of the information passed related to the Iraqi gun project.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action was taken after the report of Walter Somers that it had been approached about aiming equipment in the Iraqi supergun order.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: Walter Somers was advised that an export licence would not be granted for such equipment. No further action was taken in the absence of a connection between this and any other orders.
  494
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the day on which it was made known to his Department that Dr. Gerald Bull had conceived plans involving piping for a gun or launcher.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: Evidence began to accumulate on this in late 1989.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specifications of the Iraqi supergun export order were given to his Department.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: Certain descriptions and drawings of materials now known to relate to the Iraqi long-range gun were passed to the Department by Walter Somers and Sheffield Forgemasters in 1988.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any inquiries were made to the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of the Iraqi gun export order.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose details of commercial relations between ECGD and its customers.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the specifications of the Iraqi export order supergun were first available to his Department.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: No full specification of the supergun as a whole has ever been passed to this Department.

  Export Controls
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are taken by his Department to ascertain the accuracy of the information that is supplied by those firms seeking licences to export goods under the Exports of Goods (Control) Order 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on 29 November, column 1060.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the proper functioning of his Department's procedures for scrutinising licence applications under the Exports of Goods (Control) Order 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  The administration of export licensing by my Department was throroughly reviewed in 1988 and the controls are kept under continuous review to ensure that they remain effective and are efficiently administered.

  Technology (Imports and Exports)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the occasions since 1979 when he has used the provisions of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 to prohibit the export of sensitive technologies or materials relating to United Kingdom commitments to(a) the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, (b) COCOM controls and (c) the missile technology control regime; and what goods have been subject to forfeit under these provisions over the same time period.

  Mr. Lilley
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pakistan (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he possesses in regard to attempts by Pakistan between February and April 1990 to purchase advanced high-temperature furnaces capable of assisting in the production of nuclear weapons from the Consarc Company and Torval Ltd., based in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is not the practice to discuss individual export control matters.

  Defence Equipment Licensing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what category of licences are included in the figures for export licences granted for the sale of defence equipment in 1988 and 1989 as listed in his answer of 15 October,Official Report, column 685, which are not included in his answer of 21 February, Official Report, column 792, to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 December 1990]: Licences for personal firearms and shotguns are included in the figures supplied in the answer of 15 October. These licences were not included in the answer of 21 February which dealt specifically with military equipment.

SCOTLAND

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements exist for the provision of an occupational health service for employees within his Department; and(a) how many staff are employed to provide occupational health services, (b) how many of those staff are qualified nurses and (c) how many employees work in his Department in total.

  Mr. Lang
  All civil service departments and agencies have access to the services of the civil service occupational health service which employs some 100 fully qualified occupational health professionals—doctors, nurses and hygiene and safety advisers. It operates via a network of regional offices throughout the United Kingdom.

  At 1 December 1990 13,268 staff were employed in the Scottish Office, Scottish prison service, the Registers of Scotland executive agency and the three minor departments (Scottish Record Office, General Register Office for Scotland, and the Scottish Courts Administration) for which I am responsible.

  Firearms (Visitors' Permits)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been dealt with for British visitors' permits under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 in respect of each police authority in Scotland for the most recent period of 12 months in respect of which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For the 12-month period from 1 October 1989, when the permit scheme was introduced, the information is as follows:

  Police Force

  Firearm

  Shotgun

  Central

  19

  56

  Dumfries and Galloway

  401

  161

  Fife

  27

  73

  Grampian

  397

  806

  Lothian and Borders

  174

  566

  Northern

  1,379

  1,117

  Strathclyde

  823

  387

  Tayside

  457

  2,374

  Total for Scotland

  3,677

  5,540

  Non-pasteurised Milk
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of the health implications of the consumption of non-pasteurised milk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Retail sales of unpasteurised milk have been banned in Scotland since the introduction in 1983 of compulsory pasteurisation. This was in response to widespread public concern about the risks associated with untreated milk following a number of serious outbreaks of milk-borne disease in Scotland. There are no proposals to change the Government's compulsory pasteurisation policy, which has led to the virtual eradication of milk-borne disease in Scotland.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding incidents of illness or disease in Scotland in the last 10 years which can be attributed to the consumption of non-pasteurised milk.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of reported cases of food poisoning associated with the consumption of untreated cows' milk for each year since 1980 are as follows:

  Number of outbreaks

  Number of individual cases

  1980

  5

  103

  1981

  8

  782

  1982

  14

  539

  1983

  7

  29

  1984

  5

  27

  1985

  8

  74

  1986

  2

  10

  1987

  5

  30

  1988

  2

  5

  1989

  —

  —

  Alcohol Abuse
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the projects and centres to which to the Scottish Office has contributed financially in respect of
  497
  research into alcohol abuse and or misuse, with the figure for each such project or centre for projects to tackle alcohol abuse and misuse.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 11 December 1990, column 373.

  Antares
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports the Lord Advocate has sought or received on the sinking of the Antares; what action he is considering; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock is investigating the circumstances of the loss of this vessel and the deaths of the crew and will report to Crown counsel.

  Designated Places
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the designated places set up in each of the past 10 years and those planned for the next two years; and what financial assistance was given and is to be provided for the setting up and running of these places.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Albyn house in Aberdeen is at present the only location designated by the Secretary of State in terms of section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. It opened in 1983 and received £150,000 capital and £408,000 revenue funding, over four years, from the Scottish Office. A designated place is under construction in Inverness and is planned to open next April. It will receive up to £150,000 capital grant this financial year and tapering revenue grant towards its running costs over the next three years. The amount of revenue grant for 1991–92 is under consideration.

  . Requests for grant under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 have been submitted to the Scottish Office for designated places in Port Glasgow and in the city of Glasgow, both with the aim of opening in 1992–93. These are being considered and decisions will be announced early next year. Scottish Office financial assistance depends on the nature of the applications received and on competing demands on available resources.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now announce the budget and members of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  In view of the importance which I attach to nature conservation in Scotland, I have decided that the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland should be launched next year with a budget of £19 million. This is over 40 per cent. of the NCC budget of £45 million for the whole of Great Britain this year. This will not only allow the existing work to continue, but will provide scope for new initiatives such as a scientific programme relevant to conservation management, delegation of decision-making to the local level, practical conservation projects and more user-friendly procedures.

  The Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland
  498
  represents a major Government initiative for nature conservation in Scotland. Building on the work of the existing council, we now have all the right ingredients to bring our initiative to fruition. The combination of Magnus Magnusson's dedicated and positive leadership, an experienced and expert council and a budget allowing it to embark on new tasks will give the body the best possible start.

  In addition to Magnus Magnusson as chairman I have appointed the following:

  Mr. Bruce Cowe

  The Earl of Dalkeith

  Professor George M. Dunnet

  Mr. David Laird

  Sir John Lister-Kaye

  Councillor Duncan McPherson

  Professor Alasdair McIntyre

  Dr. Patricia Monaghan

  Dr. William Mutch

  Professor Christopher Smout

  Professor David Sugden

  My appointments to the council represent a wide variety of interests. There are scientists of international repute engaged in research on conservation issues, those with land management experience who have a vital practical role to play, and others involved with the voluntary conservation movement. I am sure that this strong team under the leadership of Magnus Magnusson will improve understanding and foster a creative relationship with those involved in the management of Scotland's natural resources.

  The new agency and the Countryside Commission for Scotland, to which I have also given additional funding, will provide a sound foundation for the creation of Scottish Natural Heritage. I am particularly keen to promote the integration of the two bodies and I know that Magnus Magnusson as its chairman-designate, as well as Bruce Cowe and Bill Mutch who are members of both boards, and the other members and staff of both bodies will carry forward the merger with enthusiasm.

  RENAVAL Programme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the European Community's RENAVAL programme in Inverclyde and Glasgow.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 12 December 1990]: On 31 July the Commission announced that the travel-to-work areas of Greenock and Glasgow had been declared eligible under the RENAVAL Community programme. A programme of measures is being prepared at present and will be submitted shortly to the Commission for approval.

  Disabled People
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of disabled people in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole who could benefit from the sheltered placement scheme; and how many such persons are now so placed in (i) Strathclyde and (ii) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 12 December 1990]: I estimate the number of disabled people who could benefit from the sheltered placement scheme to be around 10 per cent. of those registered as disabled. At April 1990 there

  499
  were around 34,000 registered disabled people in Scotland as a whole, of which about 15,700 were resident in Strathclyde. At October 1990 there were 218 such persons employed under the sheltered placement scheme in Strathclyde and 683 people employed through the scheme in Scotland as a whole.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People (Anti-discrimination Legislation)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions his Department has had with disability organisations regarding the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation.

  Mr. Jackson
  Ministers and officials from this Department have regular discussions with disability organisations during which the subject of antidiscrimination legislation is sometimes raised.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many administrative staff are employed by the Medical Research Council at its London headquarters; and what is the cost in absolute terms and as a percentage of its total budget.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I understand that as of 10 December 1990 the M RC is employing 343 administrative staff at its London headquarters office. In the 1989–90 financial year its full running costs were £8·7 million–4·7 per cent. of the council's overall budget.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to finalise the draft circular on staffing for pupils with special educational needs which was issued for consultation in January.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has today published circular 11/90 on staffing for pupils with special educational needs and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received the Audit Commission's report on rationalising primary school provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I welcome the publication of the Audit Commission's report on rationalising primary school provision. The Government will continue to urge LEAs to remove surplus school places. Despite significant progress in some areas, there are still too many, as this study shows.

  The Audit Commission's report indicates that about 900,000, or roughly one fifth, of all primary school places in England and Wales are surplus to requirements. The commission points out that surplus capacity involves expenditure which could be more productively used to improve the quality of education. Its report calls on LEAs
  500
  to tackle this issue by reviewing their position and by initiating local discussion of proposals for change. The commission notes that education in small primary schools is significantly more expensive per pupil; and its report indicates that unit costs tend to rise steeply when numbers fall below 80 or 90 pupils. It recommends that these costs are taken into account alongside other factors when LEAs review the pattern of provision.

  It is not possible to eliminate all surplus places and the Government recognise that there are circumstances in which it is neither practical nor desirable to close small schools. But the Audit Commission clearly demonstrates the benefits which can accrue from a more efficient pattern of primary education and the Government share its view that parents and others should be given more opportunity to assess the case for change. We look to LEAs to make the necessary statutory proposals.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost, in 1991–92, of raising income support, community charge benefit and housing benefit personal allowances for people under 25 years to the level for those aged 25 years and over.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available, but I shall write to the hon. Member when it is.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons aged 16 and 17 years are disqualified from benefit(a) for not taking a YTS place, (b) because they are homeless, and (c) by any other category in (i) 1988, (ii) 1989 and (iii) at the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, in 1988 there were 3,881 disqualifications from unemployment benefit in Great Britain because a person either voluntarily left a YTS place without good cause, lost a place through misconduct, refused without good cause to apply for or to accept a place or neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of a place. In 1989, there were 863 such disqualifications. In 1990, up to September 1990, there have been 585 such disqualifications. Placements on YTS or YT schemes are not limited to 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Homelessness is not a ground for refusal of benefit.

  The number of applications for income support refused under the "severe hardship" provisions applying to 16 and 17-year-olds since September 1988 are:

  Number

  1988

  773

  1989

  6,164

  11990

  7,377

  1 To end of November.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he made to recommendations from the European Commission concerning travel concession cards for over-60s; and if he will make a statement.
  501
  Mr. Jack
  The proposed European Commission over–60s card is intended to establish that a person over 60 has the opportunity to take advantage of a wide range of existing concessions throughout the Community, including transport. We are continuing to study the implications for the United Kingdom and will respond to the Commission in due course.

  Benefit Values
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East on 21 November,Official Report, column 132, if he will give the current

  Last adjustment

  Benefit

  Value £

  Date

  Prior value £

  Child benefit

  7·25

  April 1987

  7·10

  Christmas bonus

  10·00

  Unadjusted since inception

  Income support Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in

  Residential care homes

  Old age

  155·00

  August, 1990

  150·00

  very dependent elderly

  170·00

  August 1990

  165·00

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  155·00

  August 1990

  150·00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  155·00

  August 1990

  150·00

  mental handicap

  180·00

  August 1990

  175·00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  215·00

  August 1990

  210·00

  (b) (over pension age)

  155·00

  August 1990

  150·00

  others

  155·00

  August 1990

  150·00

  maximum Greater London increase

  23·00

  April 1989

  17·50

  Nursing homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  210·00

  August 1990

  200·00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  210·00

  August 1990

  200·00

  mental handicap

  225·00

  August 1990

  215·00

  terminal illness

  260·00

  August 1990

  245·00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  255·00

  August 1990

  245·00

  (b) (over pension age)

  210·00

  August 1990

  200·00

  others (including elderly)

  210·00

  August 1990

  200·00

  maximum Greater London increase

  23·00

  April 1989

  17·50

  Amounts for meals where these cannot be purchased within the accommodation (daily rate)

  breakfast

  1·10

  Unadjusted since inception

  midday meal

  1·55

  Unadjusted since inception

  evening meal

  1·55

  Unadjusted since inception

  The Polish home Ilford Park maximum amount for accommodation and meals

  155·00

  August 1990

  150·00

  Retirement pension Age addition

  0·25

  Unadjusted since inception

  Widow's payment

  1,000·00

  Unadjusted since inception

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the monetary level, or range of monetary levels, for invalidity benefit when it was introduced in September 1971, together with equivalent details and dates for each subsequent change in benefit levels, showing the average number of people in receipt of such benefit levels at each of its stages.
  502
  monetary value or range of monetary values of each benefit, together with the date of the last adjustment in each such level of benefit and the previous monetary value or range of monetary values of each such benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the table at columns 849–58, on 25 October 1989 which gives, in most cases, the present rate of each benefit and its value immediately prior to the last adjustment, which for the majority of benefits was 9 April 1990. Information on those benefits which were not increased on this date, or where the value has changed subsequently, is given in the table.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows. Information on standard weekly rates of invalidity pension, invalidity allowance and average numbers receiving benefit is in table A. The maximum amounts of earnings-related additional pension payable with invalidity pension are in table B.
  503

  Table A

  Standard weekly rates of invalidity pension

  Standard weekly rates of invalidity allowance2

  Estimated average numbers receiving benefit

  Increase for dependent

  Date

  Year

  Personal £

  Adult £

  Only, elder or eldest child £

  Second child £

  Each Other £

  Higher rate £

  Middle rate £

  Lower rate £

  Thousands (000)

  23 September

  1971

  6·00

  3·70

  2·95

  2·05

  1·95

  1·00

  0·60

  0·30

  n.a.

  5 October

  1972

  6·75

  4·15

  3·30

  2·40

  2·30

  1·15

  0·70

  0·35

  430

  4 October

  1973

  7·75

  4·75

  3·80

  2·90

  2·80

  1·60

  1·00

  0·50

  440

  25 July

  1974

  10·00

  6·00

  4·90

  4·00

  3·90

  2·05

  1·30

  0·65

  450

  10 April

  1975

  11·60

  6·90

  5·65

  4·15

  4·15

  2·40

  1·50

  0·75

  470

  20 November

  1975

  13·30

  7·90

  6·50

  5·00

  5·00

  2·80

  1·70

  0·85

  470

  18 November

  1976

  15·30

  9·20

  7·45

  5·95

  5·95

  3·20

  2·00

  1·00

  510

  4 April

  1977

  15·30

  9·20

  16·45

  5·95

  5·95

  3·20

  2·00

  1·00

  550

  17 November

  1977

  17·50

  10·50

  7·40

  6·90

  6·90

  3·70

  2·30

  1·15

  550

  3 April

  1978

  17·50

  10·50

  6·10

  6·10

  6·10

  3·70

  2·30

  1·15

  600

  16 November

  1978

  19·50

  11·70

  6·35

  6·35

  6·35

  4·15

  2·60

  1·30

  600

  2 April

  1979

  19·50

  11·70

  15·35

  15·35

  15·35

  4·15

  2·60

  1·30

  620

  15 November

  1979

  23·30

  14·00

  7·10

  7·10

  7·10

  4·90

  3·10

  1·55

  620

  27 November

  1980

  26·00

  15·60

  7·50

  7·50

  7·50

  5·45

  3·45

  1·75

  620

  26 November

  1981

  28·35

  17·00

  7·70

  7·70

  7·70

  6·20

  4·00

  2·00

  660

  25 November

  1982

  31·45

  18·85

  7·95

  7·95

  7·95

  6·90

  4·40

  2·20

  700

  24 November

  1983

  32·60

  19·55

  7·60

  7·60

  7·60

  7·15

  4·80

  2·30

  760

  29 November

  1984

  34·25

  20·55

  7·65

  7·65

  7·65

  7·50

  4·80

  2·40

  825

  28 November

  1985

  38·30

  23·00

  8·05

  8·05

  8·05

  8·05

  5·10

  2·55

  865

  31 July

  1986

  38·70

  23·25

  8·05

  8·05

  8·05

  8·15

  5·20

  2·60

  935

  9 April

  1987

  39·50

  23·75

  8·05

  8·05

  8·05

  8·30

  5·30

  2·65

  1,010

  14 April

  1988

  41·15

  24·75

  8·40

  8·40

  8·40

  8·65

  5·50

  2·75

  1,100

  13 April

  1989

  43·60

  26·20

  8·95

  8·95

  8·95

  9·20

  5·80

  2·90

  1,185

  9 April

  1990

  46·90

  28·20

  9·65

  9·65

  9·65

  10·00

  6·20

  3·10

  1,265

  1 Adjusted to take account of child benefit.

  2 Invalidity allowance is payable with invalidity pension and the rates depend on age when incapacity began.

  Table B

  Maximum amount of additional invalidity pension

  Date

  £

  6 April 1979

  1·31

  12 November 1979

  1·54

  6 April 1980

  2·96

  24 November 1980

  3·45

  6 April 1981

  5·37

  23 November 1981

  5·86

  6 April 1982

  8·64

  22 November 1982

  9·59

  6 April 1983

  11·96

  21 November 1983

  12·40

  6 April 1984

  15·42

  26 November 1984

  16·21

  6 April 1985

  19·50

  25 November 1985

  20·87

  6 April 1986

  23·77

  28 July 1986

  24·03

  6 April 1987

  29·11

  6 April 1988

  34·75

  6 April 1989

  41·34

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have claimed mobility allowance on the grounds that they are both deaf and blind at the last date for which figures are available; how many of these claims were(a) successful, (b) refused and (c) awaiting adjudication; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) of 11 December at column 424.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of enabling people who qualify only for a care component of the disability living allowance before the age of 65 years to receive a mobility component if their mobility needs increase after that age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 6 December 1990]: The extent to which people qualifying for a care component before age 65 would be likely to become entitled lo a mobility component after reaching age 65 cannot be predicted with any certainty. It is estimated, however, that the eventual cost could be in the order of £100 million a year.

DEFENCE

  Fire Fighting
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Royal Air Force practice with regard to charging local authorities for airlifting fire crews to light fires on islands; and whether any standing arrangements exist with individual fire authorities to make helicopters available for this purpose.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Where military search and rescue SAR helicopters fly to islands to rescue people from life-threatening fires, local authorities are not charged for airlifting fire crews at the same time. Where life is not in danger, however, and SAR helicopters would not otherwise have attended the incident, appropriate charges
  505
  are raised. There are currently standing arrangements with the local authorities of Devon, Cornwall and the Highlands and Islands covering such assistance.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had or is having with(a) the United States of America and (b) the French Governments regarding the loan of a ballistic missile submarine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been no such discussions.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for how long he intends that HMS Dreadnought should remain at Rosyth naval dockyard;

  (2) what is his present policy in respect of the disposal of the hulks of the reactor components of retired nuclear-powered submarines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The question of the disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines is under active consideration but no final decision has yet been taken. Meanwhile HMS Dreadnought will continue safely to be stored afloat at Rosyth royal dockyard.

  Sexual Orientation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Navy makes any payments to those giving information about service men's sexual orientation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Fishing Boats (Accidents)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the arrangements he has agreed with the Clyde Fishermen's Association to avoid further accidents between fishing boats and submarines in the firth of Clyde; whether such arrangements will extend to the Irish sea and its approaches; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will extend the submarine notification procedure between the Royal Navy and the fishing industry for the firth of Clyde to the Irish sea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information on the times and areas in which submarine activity is planned will be broadcast to fishermen by the coastguard every four hours using VHF radio. Similar information will also be available through the operations room at Faslane. The scheme will be introduced in the Clyde area on 17 December. Any extension of this scheme to other sea areas would have to take account both of its working in the Clyde area and of its practicability elsewhere.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the trials of the Seametrix system of transponders on fishing nets; when he expects them to conclude; if the cost of such systems will be funded by the Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Trials of a static electronic net-avoidance device have already been carried out. It is 506
  planned to hold a series of further trials, involving a towed prototype. These will begin on 13 December and will include the participation of Royal Navy vessels. No decision has been taken on the funding of such devices if and when a product becomes commercially available.

  Tornado (Power Line Incident)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding an incident involving a Tornado cutting a power line near Carsphairn on 26 November; what information he now has about the incident; what action he is taking as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In addition to the hon. Member's letter of 29 November, we have received one other. A unit inquiry was held immediately after the incident, and confirmed that a Tornado GR1 aircraft struck a wire near Dalmellington at approximately 11.50 am on 26 November, while undertaking a properly authorised sortie in the Borders tactical training area. The aircrew were authorised to fly at a minimum separation distance of 100 ft above the ground or obstacles. The inquiry judged that the aircraft was 100 ft or more above the ground when it struck the wire. Following the inquiry, the aircrew were formally interviewed by higher authority before departing for operational duties in the Gulf.

  Antares
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the report of the naval inquiry into the sinking of the Antares.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The board of inquiry should complete its work later this week. The report will be forwarded to Ministers after it has been considered by the Commander-in-Chief.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen),Official Report, 28 November, column 442, he will set out for each of the nuclear tests listed the proportion of the cost of each test charged to the United Kingdom and the cost in 1990 in sterling of each test conducted; and which of the tests resulted in the venting of radioactive gases to the atmosphere.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to reveal financial information associated with United Kingdom participation in nuclear tests. Of the 14 tests listed in my answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 28 November at column 442, there were operational releases of radioactive gases from three, namely Gibne, Armada and Barnwell. In none of these was any radioactivity detected at locations beyond the boundary of the Nevada test site.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has received any information from the French Defence Ministry concerning the nuclear test conducted by France at Muroroa on 21 November.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has received no information direct from the French Ministry of Defence on this subject. However, I understand that the French Ministry of Defence issued a statement via Agence France Presse immediately after the test on 21 November.

WALES

  Drugs
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department will take steps to ascertain whether any consultants employed in regional specialty units funded by his Department are prevented from presenting the drugs of their choice to patients because of financial constraints.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Except where central guidance may be issued, this is a matter for the appropriate managing health authorities.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if regional specialty renal units in Wales may prescribe the drug Erythropoietin to any patient that the consultant considers appropriate without financial constraint.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Under the new management and financial arrangements which will come into effect from 1 April 1991 it will be for individual health authorities to determine appropriate arrangements relating to the prescription of drugs. In the meantime, funds have been made available to those health authorities responsible for main renal units in Wales to assist with the additional cost of providing Erythropoietin where this is considered clinically necessary.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the proposed ministerial duties of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 6 December 1990.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the systems used by local authorities in Wales in allocating council-owned properties to prospective tenants in respect of their even-handedness.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Advice to local housing authorities concerning the allocation of council houses was produced by the housing management advisory panel for Wales in February 1988, and issued from the Department with the endorsement of the then Committee of Welsh District Councils. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions for further advice I should be happy to consider them.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the confirmed pollution incidents in Wales since the establishment of the Welsh region of the National Rivers Authority, specifying the nature and extent of the pollution, and indicating (i) whether a prosecution is pending, (ii) the number of prosecutions that have occurred, and (iii) the number of prosecutions that have been successful together with the penalties.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will express the amount of money allocated to each county in Wales to tackle alcohol abuse(a) as a figure per head in each county and (b) as a figure per head of those estimated as having alcohol problems in each county.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is not intended to allocate money from the central fund on a proportional basis to counties.

  NHS Employees (Guidance)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has completed consideration of the case for further guidance to be issued to national health service employees on the private practice interests in potential competition with their work in income-generating departments in the national health service.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In conjunction with the Department of Health, work is proceeding on the preparation of guidance dealing with staff-employer relationships in the NHS, including conflicts of interests.

  Crown Buildings
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes there have been in the place of work of sub-divisions of his Department as between different Crown buildings(a) in the present financial year and (b) in 1988–89.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The only significant changes took place in 1989–90 when the agriculture department's office in Aberystwyth was moved and the staff transferred to offices at Trawsgoed, and in 1990–91 when the Welsh Office education department moved from Cathays Park to Llanishen, Cardiff.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for changing the place of work. of sub-divisions of his Department between different Crown buildings(a) in the current financial year, (b) in the coming financial year and (c) subsequent to the departure of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department Insurance Services Group from Crown building, Cathays Park.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There are currently no firm plans to change the location of Welsh Office divisions. My Department's accommodation needs are however kept under constant review; if additional accommodation becomes available in the New Crown building, Cathays Park, that will be taken into account.

  NHS Information Systems
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 10 December, what is the additional(a) capital cost, (b) staffing revenue costs and (c) non-staff revenue costs associated with the establishment of improved information systems and detailed costing of services in the current and next financial year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Developments to improve information systems generally, including the costing of services, are being undertaken as part of the all-Wales information and information technology strategy for the
  509
  NHS in Wales. The total available funds provided by the Department in 1990–91 to support the strategy are £12·2 million capital, and an additional £3·36 million revenue. A precise division between staffing and non-staff revenue costs is not readily available. The funding for 1991–92 will be announced in the new year.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 10 December, what is his best estimate of the present degree of accuracy of the costing of different treatments by the national health service service providers in Wales; and what he expects it to be after the improved information systems are in place.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  National health service service providers do not at present have the computerised information systems to cost services at sub-speciality level as a matter of routine. The implementation of improved information systems over the next two to three years, and in particular the case mix management and new financial ledger systems, will give NHS providers increasingly detailed information at patient level which will enable them to utilise their resources with increased efficiency to provide a better quality service to patients.

  Building Works
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 December to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), what factors led to the increase from £299,405 in 1988–89 to £686,144 in his Department's expenditure on building repairs, maintenance and improvements.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department's normal programme of repairs, maintenance and improvements was augmented by three major schemes:the refurbishment of offices at Llanishen, Cardiff, for staff who were moved to release space in Cathays Park for extra staff working on the implementation of the NHS review; the rationalisation of accommodation at Gabalfa, Cardiff for veterinary advisers and ADAS; and
  the conversion of premises to workshops and storage space at the Colchester Avenue industrial estate, Cardiff.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 December to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), what is the 510
  breakdown between (a) Crown building, Cathays Park, (b) Gwydyr house, Whitehall, (c) Ty Glas road, Llanishen and (d) other in the 1988–89 and 1989–90 total of departmental expenditure on building repairs, maintenance and improvements.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Expenditure incurred by myDepartment on building repairs, maintenance and improvements was as follows:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  £

  £

  Cathays Park

  77,542

  115,312

  Gwydyr House

  5,077

  11,734

  Llanishen

  3,219

  272,024

  Other

  213,567

  287,074

  299,405

  686,144

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 December to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher),Official Report, column 151, what is his estimate of expenditure on building repairs, maintenance and improvements in (a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92; and if he will list the major jobs being carried out or proposed to be carried out in that period.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The forecast outturn of my Department's expenditure on building repairs, maintenance and improvements in 1990–91 is £510,000. Plans for 1991–92 are not yet firm, but expenditure is likely to be of the same order. Major works have been or will be completed in the following buildings in 1990–91:

  Agriculture Department, Caernarfon;

  Education Department, Bangor;

  Medical Examination Centre, Port Talbot;

  Agriculture Department, Trawsgoed;

  Transport and Highways Department, Llanishen;

  Old Crown Building, Cathays Park.

  It is hoped to undertake major works at the following buildings in 1991–92:

  Medical Examination Centre, Pontypridd;

  Agriculture Department, Caernarfon;

  Agriculture Department, Haverfordwest;

  Agriculture Department, Gabalfa;

  Staff Training Unit, Cardiff.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Jeffreys Lord Jeffreys —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1990 be made in the form of a draft laid before your House.
"I will comply with your request."

Telecommunications: US and EC Market Access
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to ensure that British companies are offered equal access to United States and EC telecommunication service markets commensurate with the unrestricted access to the British domestic long-distance and international telecommunication markets proposed in the consultative document presented by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry onl3th November.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government take every opportunity to impress on the other member states of the European Community and on the United States the desirability of removing regulatory barriers to the development of competition in telecommunications.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that short but informative reply. Is he aware that under the United States Federal Communications Act 1934 British companies are limited to 20 per cent. ownership of United States companies operating the radio spectrum? Is he further aware that the US authorities have sought exemption from most favoured nation provisions for telecommunications in agreements under GATT in order to support the overseas operations of US companies? Why do not Her Majesty's Government similarly support the entry of British companies into the telecommunications markets of the US and the EC?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware of the United States 1934 communications Act. I can assure my noble friend that we continue to press our concern on this matter at every opportunity available to us. With regard to most favoured nation treatment, again the
574
Government have in Brussels, particularly during the last week of the GATT round, pushed our unhappiness with the proposals in regard to derogation to which the United States refers. We constantly refer to the bilateral basis.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, while our American friends are understandably active in seeking concessions to assist their companies, they are very much less forthcoming in the other direction. Can we not obtain a little more reciprocity in the general trade picture?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is fair to say too that by leading the way in the liberalisation of telecommunications policy we can also show some results. It is worth recording that we have the highest value added content of about £700 million per annum, and climbing, of any European country; it is over twice that of any other European country. It is significant that IBM is moving its world communications centre from New York to London, partly on the basis of the liberal regime that exists in this country.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in his reply the Minister said that the Government are taking every opportunity available to them to deal with the matter. In view of its great importance to this country, can he be more precise about when the next opportunity will be available to the Government to press forward in this respect?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, further discussions on the GATT round will be taking place at the beginning of January. This is an on-going situation—to use an appallingly hackneyed phrase. I believe that a combination of government pressure and a liberalised regime which is paying dividends will benefit this country.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House as a matter of information whether the Secretary of State has granted any licences to companies in foreign ownership to operate in our domestic telecommunications market? If so, which companies are they and under what ownership?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that question is somewhat wide in its specific nature of the Question on the Order Paper; otherwise I would be more than happy to answer it. However, I can assure the noble Lord that having privatised British Telecom we do not wish to see nationalisation by the back door occurring by single-owned nationalised companies coming into this country.
Lord Morris: My Lords, looking at this problem from the other end of the telescope, so to speak, is my noble friend aware that the vast majority of holdings in the cable companies in the United Kingdom are by United States companies and not British companies? Will he assure the House that that is an example of the desirability of reciprocity with the United States?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, cable companies do not fall within the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, the Government rightly reject unilateral disarmament in defence matters, so why are they so enthusiastic about unilateral disarmament in trade matters?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we believe that a free market is a unilaterally more successful way of conducting business.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I press the noble Lord on my question, which refers directly to the Question on the Order Paper. Do the Government support unrestricted access to the British telecommunications market? In what form has that access been granted and to whom?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government will pay close attention to the degree of state ownership when considering the granting of a licence. Privatisation has been successful and we do not wish to encourage nationalisation by the back door.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Benches behind him are almost empty? Is that a mass desertion?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that I did not entirely get the point of the noble Lord's question, due to my own fallibility.

European Consumer Affairs Council
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What items were discussed at the European Community Council of Ministers' meeting on consumer affairs on 7th December 1990, and what progress was made.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the European Council of Ministers' meeting on consumer affairs which had been scheduled for 7th December 1990 was cancelled by the Italian presidency.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the cancellation was due to inadequate preparatory work on the draft directive on product safety? If so, is he aware that the Council of Ministers has already discussed the draft directive four times? If the cancellation was not due to inadequate preparatory work can he tell the House what was the cause?
Can the Minister further say whether he and his fellow Ministers accept the incessant delay which goes on and on? Do they ever protest? Can we be told the date of the next meeting?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there were several meetings of officials concerned with the general product safety directive during the period just before 7th December. The directive was to be the main item on the agenda. However, the Italians clearly felt that not enough progress had been made to justify a further discussion in council.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I was about to say that the Minister has not answered half of my questions, but that might put me in the wrong. Can the Minister say whether he and his fellow Ministers ever protest at this incessant delay which goes on and on? Can he tell us the date when these matters will be discussed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the decision was made by the Italian presidency. It was its decision to make. The next presidency will be held by Luxembourg. It has to say whether this item will be included on the agenda.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the light of the provisions of Article 39(1) (e) of the Treaty of Rome, can the Minister give the House an assurance that when the Council of Ministers dealing with consumer affairs next meets it will deal with the question —as required by treaty—of the prices paid by the consumer for agricultural products? Has the British Minister dealing with consumer affairs had the opportunity of reading the report of the National Consumer Council of the United Kingdom? The report was prepared under the distinguished chairmanship of the Minister's noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes: it deals with food prices and the common agricultural policy.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is always a treat to see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, holding a copy of the treaty in his hand. Although I read the report to which the noble Lord referred in my previous incarnation as the Minister for consumer affairs, his point is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, has the Minister received representations about the draft directive on product safety from the consumer organisations? If so, can he say whether their representations will form part of government policy? If that is not the case, can the Minister say why?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in my previous role I received representations from those with interests in consumer affairs and in the European dimension. The problems concerning the negotiations involve matters that go beyond the question of whether subsidiarity is part of the difficulties which we face.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, some of the documents and data referred to by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington are at the heart of the issue of consumer affairs. In those circumstances can the noble Lord say why he considers them to be somewhat wide of a Question which deals wholly with consumer affairs?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Question refers specifically to the general product safety directive which is entirely different to the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, am I correct in assuming that if the Minister had protested at the delay he would have been only too pleased to have told the House? Will the Minister inform the House whether our own Ministers have ever protested at the delay? Is it their intention to do anything about it or simply to sit there and do nothing?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the cancellation was a unilateral decision taken by the Italian presidency. That decision was taken before there was any possibility of our protesting.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he was not entirely correct in saying that the Question did not deal specifically with consumer affairs and that it was restricted to the

577
matters raised by the noble Baroness? Does he not agree that the Question deals with consumer affairs generally and that I was quite in order to put the question that I did?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this is one of the very rare occasions when I beg to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.

Air Navigation Regulations
3.15 p.m.
Lord Whaddon Lord Whaddon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to amend the regulations governing air navigation currently in force.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the regulations governing air navigation are reviewed from time to time. The last review resulted in the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 1990 the provisions of which began to come into force on 1st December. The amendments are matters of technical and legal detail and do not include any changes of policy except that private aircraft must now comply with regulations governing taking off and landing in had weather.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that pilots are encouraged to make trial approaches and overshoots at airfields from time to time in the interests of flight safety and for the maintenance of skills? Is he further aware that the regulations provide for such specific trial manoeuvres at licensed airfields, but that no such permission is evident in the rules covering unlicensed airfields which are the vast majority? Does the Minister not agree that the interests of flight safety demand that such permission should be allowed at all airfields both licensed and unlicensed? Will he seek to amend the regulations accordingly?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the safety of air navigation is the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I shall obtain the views of the chairman of that body and write to the noble Lord on the substance of his question. The regulations to which the noble Lord referred do not specifically prohibit practice at approaches to unlicensed aerodromes but specifically permit practice approaches at licensed aerodromes.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that these regulations have the approval of the Civil Aviation Authority?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes, that is correct.

The Classless Society
3.17 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to bring about the classless society advocated by the Prime Minister.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, The Government will continue with their policies of extending opportunity through increased home and share ownership, the encouragement of wealth creation by low taxation on families and business and reforms in education so that men and women may go as far as their talents, ambitions and effort can take them without artificial barriers of background, religion, or race.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. I welcome him in answering his first Question at the Dispatch Box. Does the noble Lord regard the constitution of this House as part of the classless society or has he any proposals for reform?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not think that it would be wise for me at this first Question Time to attack hereditary honours. I note that many noble Lords on the Opposition Benches who claim to support the classless society have hereditary titles themselves. What matters is not the titles that people hold but whether those with talent and ambition have the opportunity to use their talents to the full.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as a contribution towards the classless society and as one of his first tasks, will the noble Lord examine the possibility of doing something about the very classified nature of this House?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is far too great a matter for me to deal with today. No doubt it will be the subject of debate on many occasions, but I do not think that this is the time for me to launch into the intricacies of the British constitution.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that we can have a classless society which includes a very large number of unemployed people? As the figures released today show that the increase in the number of the unemployed—which is part of government policy—is now moving towards 2 million, is that factor included in the Government's proposals for producing the classless society?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is right to point out that the number of long-term unemployed has actually fallen again and that more people are in work than ever before. The truth of the matter is that the living standards of all sections of society have improved in recent years. I do not understand how it can be suggested that depressing living standards, as happened under Labour, bring one nearer to a classless society. Social spending has increased in real terms by 41 per cent. in the past 11 years; social security spending on families actually went down under the previous Labour Government.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on becoming Leader of the House. Many of us consider that a just society is to be preferred to a so-called classless society. In that context, does he not agree that we cannot have a just society when there are far too many people out of work and too many of our fellow citizens are sleeping rough in boxes in the

579
centres of our great cities? That is not a just society; it is certainly not a classless society; it is simply a bad society.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is certainly the case that a slowing down of the economy has occurred after eight years of unprecedented growth—after eight years during which our economy grew very much faster than that of almost any other country in the European Community. Noble Lords will recognise how necessary it is to combat inflation. The slowing down of the economy that has occurred and the regrettable increase in unemployment will have to be endured for the moment in order to squeeze inflation out of the system.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Opposition Benches contain a large number of hereditary Peers. Is he aware that, if all those who are not hereditary Peers were to disappear, looking around me at the moment I think that that would leave just four of us?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I was obviously concentrating my mind on the debate which took place yesterday, when one or two hereditary Peers on the Opposition Benches made most interesting contributions.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the commitment made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is most simply described as a commitment to a society in which all members of the United Kingdom can make the best use of their talents and that is not obstructed by the institutions which some noble Lords opposite are seeking to denigrate?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. When my right honourable friend the Prime Minister referred to a classless society, he was referring to a society in which every individual could make the best use of the talents at his disposal. I believe that that day has come very much nearer during the past 11 years.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, in regard to every individual making a contribution to society, do the Government's plans for a classless society include the removal of the present inhibition to most women becoming Members of your Lordships' House?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is part of the Government's programme to see that there is real equality of opportunity. Many steps have been taken in recent years to further that aim.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the Government are adopting a gradual approach to a classless society by creating Baronets instead of Peers?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is a subject on which again I had better not comment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Wales is in fact a classless society? Is he further aware that it is 100 years since Lloyd George entered Parliament and that he, a Welshman, did more than any other politician in this century to move us towards a classless society?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not think it is right this afternoon for me to express a view on the virtues or lack of virtues of Mr. Lloyd George.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, in view of the fact that nowhere on this earth does a classless society exist, can the noble Lord, without political invective, say in simple terms what in his mind constitutes a classless society?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is an open society and a society in which each individual, man or woman, can make the best use of the talents at his or her disposal; and if he or she has the energy and the talents, he or she can rise to the top.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind the noble Lord's background in the Home Office and also the view that justice is available only to the very rich or the very poor, will the Government now have another look at the legal aid system to ensure that justice is available to all?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is present to hear the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their U-turn in admitting the existence of society, which was repudiated by the right honourable lady the Member for Finchley while she occupied such a distinguished office. Will the noble Lord explain how he proposes to incorporate within his new society the 4 million children who according to the latest UNICEF report are living under conditions of poverty, a number double what it was 10 years ago?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord has advanced a most extraordinary proposition. When one looks back at 1979–80 and remembers the legislation then introduced to give people the opportunities which they never had before to buy their council houses, when one looks at all the opportunities which have been given over recent years for people to acquire shares, not only shares in any company but in the companies for which they work, and when one considers the opportunities available now for people to pass on wealth to their children, there are now opportunities such as people 11 years ago never dreamt of.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord asserted that the standard of living of all the people of this country had risen over the past 10 years. Is he aware that the bottom 10 per cent. of our population have seen their standard of living rise by about 10 per cent., whereas the top 10 per cent. have seen their standard of living rise by more than 70 per cent.? Is that what he and his right honourable friend consider to be progress towards a classless society?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can only assume from the noble Lord's question that he would be far happier if there had been no increase in living standards for any of the classes in society so that all of them would have had the lower standards of living which they had under the last Labour Government.

Ade1phi Estate Bill
3.28 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business of the House: Debate, 16th January
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Ezra set down for 16th January shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—[Lord Waddington.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Namibia Bill [H.L.]
Lord Reay: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]
3.29 p. m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lards, 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.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Maintenance orders in the High Court and county courts: means of payment, attachment of earnings and revocation, variation, etc.]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("either of its powers") and insert ("its power").
The noble Lord said: When I spoke on this Bill at Second Reading I ended my remarks by saying that we on this side of the Chamber hoped that we could give the Bill a calm sea and a following wind. I see that the following wind has now driven out all those noble Lords and noble Baronesses who wish at this point to leave the Chamber to go elsewhere and do something else.
In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 7, 11, 13 and 17. The first two are small amendments and the centre of the group is Amendment No. 3. The effect of that amendment would be to delete all reference in the Bill to the High Court or the county court being able to order that a debtor should make payments under a maintenance order by standing order or by direct debit. The subsection giving the court power to order a debtor to open a bank account would also be deleted.
We do not believe that the imposition of standing orders or direct debits will improve the enforcement of maintenance orders. We say that for two reasons. First, both the debtor and the creditor will need to have bank accounts. That may prove difficult, and a power to force the debtor to open a bank account, as contained in subsection (6), may provoke hostility and have considerable implications as regards civil liberties. Further, the provision is an extremely unusual one and is not present in any similar legislation.
Secondly, banks now consider it desirable practice to credit score someone before accepting an application to open an account. That means that the bank obtains some basic information on whether or not the individual concerned would be a suitable person to hold an account. Clearly, if credit scoring is carried out it may have the effect of making it difficult for some individuals to open bank accounts. In saying that, I refer to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on Second Reading on 29th November (col. 1083 of Hansard). The banks' unwillingness to accept certain customers will be increased if there is a probability that the bank charges will accrue and will not be met.
Even if both parties open bank accounts, that will not necessarily lead to the payment of maintenance orders. To operate a standing order it is necessary to place funds in an account. The easiest way for a debtor to avoid payment of an order, despite having opened a bank account, is to ensure—by neglect, of course —that no funds go into his account. The provisions of the Bill do nothing to tackle the problem. It is our feeling that banks are unlikely to want to take on customers who really do not wish to be customers. It seems to us that that does not get the relationship off to a good start. We therefore submit that those provisions would cause more trouble than they are worth and ought therefore to be deleted from the Bill.
An alternative to that method of collection would be to include a provision specifying that maintenance payments can be collected by the Inland Revenue. That seems to us to be much simpler and more preferable. We may possibly put forward an amendment to that effect at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: Can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether the banks have been consulted? Further, if they have, can he say what they have said on the matter and whether they are willing to accept this ruling in the Bill?
Earl Ferrets: I understand the point which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is trying to make. I think that we should first look at the principle behind the Bill. Its principal objective is to ensure that maintenance payments are made regularly. That is the raison d'être of the Bill. As Members of the Committee will appreciate, regularity of payment can be as important as the amount of maintenance ordered. Regular maintenance payments reduce the need for lone parents to rely on income support and for valuable court resources to be used for enforcement proceedings.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would prevent the courts having the power to order a maintenance debtor to make his payments by standing order or by a similar method direct to the maintenance creditor. I explained on Second Reading why we considered it so important, from the point of view of ensuring regularity of payment, that the courts should be given the standing order power. Under a standing order arrangement, the maintenance creditor does not have to rely on the debtor taking a positive step on each occasion when payment is due. It will come in automatically unless some positive action is taken to interrupt it. The debtor may not be well motivated to make regular payments. The power to order payment by standing order may be especially relevant where, for example, a person is self-employed, so that the possibility of an attachment of earnings order does not arise.
I ask the noble Lord to remember that this Bill does not concentrate solely on one method of payment; it contains four methods. There is no requirement that the court must consider one of those methods of payment—in this case a standing order or, alternatively, an attachment of earnings order—before any of the others. All the methods of payment are equally available. The court is also obliged, before specifying the method of payment, to have regard to any representations made by those concerned. In other words, if the creditor does not have a bank account, or the debtor does not have a bank account, or even if the creditor does not want payment made in that way, he or she may so inform the court.
It is important that we do not shy away from improving the mechanics of collection of maintenance. Payment by standing order will ensure that the careless maintenance debtor does not become the habitual object of enforcement proceedings. His maintenance payments will be paid with the same regularity as his other standing orders.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether the banks had been specifically consulted on the matter. I am afraid that I cannot give her the answer to that question. I shall endeavour to find out the position, though I believe that it is relatively an irrelevance. If the creditor and the debtor have a bank account and if the court orders that the standing order system should be used, I do not see that the bank concerned should have any cause to complain about the procedure any more than it would in respect of any other standing order which it might be obliged to pay.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I thank the Minister for that reply, which has all the virtues of succinctness. The points he made are ones with which I am not totally happy. I should like especially to ask him to consider the famous phrase of the philosopher Occam:
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter neccesitas",
which could be translated into, "You don't need to have more golf clubs in your bag than you are ever likely to use". I believe that a much simpler method of effecting the end which the Bill seeks to achieve would be to consider collection by the Inland Revenue, which has the merit of great simplicity. I think that we shall probably return to the matter at a later stage in an effort to try to convince the noble Earl of the virtues of that method.
Earl Ferrers: Just before the noble Lord concludes, perhaps I may take the opportunity to enlighten my noble friend as regards the question she asked. By some miraculous method I have now found the answer, which I had momentarily forgotten. I said that I did not believe the banks had been consulted on the use of standing orders for the purposes of the Bill. However, it appears that they have. They expressed some reservations about the proposed power of compulsion to open a bank account. But it was explained to them that that would be a power of last resort. That is the position.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend for that reply.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am afraid that I do not quite understand the procedure. Obviously if the person against whom the order is made is prepared to pay, the standing order process is a good method. However, if he is not prepared to pay it is quite clear that he could remove funds from the account from which the standing order should be made and therefore it would not be paid. I am not clear as to what would happen in such a situation.
Earl Ferrers: The court has four methods by which it can direct payments to be made: directly to the creditor, payment to the court, payment by standing order or similar procedure, or by an attachment of earnings order. If, in its wisdom, the court orders a debtor to pay by standing order and the debtor has no bank account, the court will first say, "We think that you should have a bank account. Will you go and open one?" The court will then adjourn the proceedings for 14 days, or whatever the period may be, until the account is opened. The proceedings will then be reopened. The debtor will say, "I have opened an account", and the standing order will then be made by the court. I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is asking what will happen if two months later the gentleman decides to rescind the standing order.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: With respect, not to rescind the standing order, but to remove his money from the account.
Earl Ferrers: If he removes his money from the account and does not comply with the order, he will return to the court because he will be in breach of the order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

585
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("case") to end of line 18.
The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the Committee for not being present on Second Reading to give a forecast of what I might be talking about. I had duties in the Isle of Wight which took me away at that time. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 12, which has the same effect in relation to magistrates' courts as Amendment No. 4 has in relation to the higher courts. Both amendments seek to remove the introduction of compulsory attachment of earnings.
As the Committee will be aware, I am advised on this type of matter by the CBI. In a sort of—I hate to say it—underhand way different departments of state are inviting businesses to act as agents for central government in a variety of ways. Only the day before yesterday, I was pleading that the system of statutory sickness pay should not be changed in the way proposed by the Government. I pointed out that in administering statutory sickness pay businesses have an administrative obligation for which the Government do not pay them. It adds to their work, and in a way reduces the efficiency of companies which need to be wholly efficient in the modern world to provide, the wealth necessary to keep the state going. The principle is being introduced more and more.
At the moment the CBI is in discussion with the Department of the Environment about the introduction of attachment of earnings orders for the community charge. That has been and gone, but it happened. Good progress is being made in ensuring that the administrative procedures are as simple and certain as possible and impose the minimum amount of extra work upon the employer. We now have a further requirement. On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister made clear why we want a system of maintenance enforcement and why an attachment of earnings order is an attractive way of enforcing maintenance. However, as my noble friend said, as reported at col. 1073 of the Official Report for 29th November, attachment of earnings orders can be used now, but only by consent of the debtor.
That was good for the courts. They were therefore not liable to be called aggressive and authoritarian bodies, forcing people to do things that had hitherto been done by consent. What is more important—apart from the extra work that companies will have to undertake—companies are worried that taking on those extra obligations on behalf of the state will cause them industrial relations problems. Individuals who until now have seen such requirements imposed by consent only will say, "Why is my company taking this money to pay this woman whom I left?" One can imagine all sorts of circumstances in which a man may feel aggrieved. I feel strongly that children should not suffer, but the woman involved may have behaved atrociously. Why should a man's company take away from him the money that he has earned?
There is a great deal of anxiety about this issue. In the climate of this legislation, it is difficult to see a
586
compromise. It would be nice if the Government were to say that although they are giving themselves the power to do so they will not introduce the orders until they are proved to be necessary and will try all the other methods first. One possibility is that my noble friend will give an undertaking along those lines. Another possibility is that he may say that if they want to make an order under the subsections that I seek to remove they will consult the CBI before proceeding, in the same way as the Department of the Environment is consulting the CBI about the details of attachment of earnings orders in relation to the community charge. Those are possibilities, but it would be much better at this stage if we did not go down that route and left attachment of earnings as a voluntary matter, for the sake of the magistrates' courts and the companies.
We should bear in mind that the country is in a difficult financial position. We do not want to impoverish our companies further by industrial relations disputes, and so it might be better to accept the amendments at this stage and return to the issue at a later date when the country is more prosperous and may be better able to afford it. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: On Tuesday we heard a most effective speech from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. He protested vigorously at the administrative burdens being placed on employers. There have been a number of such burdens. He is justified in drawing attention to them. For a long time we have had the Customs and Excise. We now have VAT, which imposes a considerable burden upon all except small retailers. We have the Inland Revenue PAYE scheme, which has been generally beneficial and welcomed. We also have the proposals to which the noble Lord referred —that sick pay should be administered, and funded partially, by the employer. Now he addresses himself to the attachment of earnings. I am afraid that I cannot go along with him on that at all. In my experience, attachment of earnings is by far the best way of enforcing maintenance arrears and keeping the maintenance defaulter out of prison.
This is not a new proposal. Attachment of earnings for this purpose was introduced under a Conservative Government by a predecessor in the office of the noble Earl in the 1950s. Initially when it was introduced it was proposed by a private Member and it ran into difficulty with trade unionists. When it was taken up as a government measure it was welcomed by the official Opposition, led on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Robens. At that time there was no thought of demur at all from employers. So far as I know, there has been no difficulty since then.
Obviously the noble Lord is quite right in saying that the matter must be regarded in its wider context. Nevertheless, if attachment of earnings as an administrative burden on employers is justified, it is certainly justified here. Not only is it not new but it is justified by the very nature of the nuclear family, which is based, among other things, on the co-operative division of labour between men and

587
women. It is women who bear and suckle children. They generally have the main burden of bringing up young children. That frees the man, the husband, for his economic advancement to earn emoluments in the labour market. When the employer pays the man his wage or salary he pays the wage earner who is enabled to earn by virtue of the wife's self-abnegation. She is fully entitled to share in those emoluments, and that is the view of the employers. That is the ultimate reason.
However, there is another reason. This is by far the best way of keeping the habitual maintenance defaulter out of prison. It would be a matter very much within the knowledge of the noble Earl, with his cognisance of prisons, as well as the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. In my experience, no section of the prison population is more hopeless or more discouraging than the maintenance defaulter. He is sent to prison because there is no other way of dealing with him.
However, now the Government have several other ways, of which this is much the most effective. If we wish to clear these inadequate psychopaths—as they mostly are—out of prison, this is by far the best way of doing it. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment, as I should in any case find myself compelled to resist it.
Baroness Faithfull: I have listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord. I am in some difficulty because in my experience in a proportion of cases, although not all, if an attachment of earnings order is made, often the man will move his employment. I should be grateful for an explanation of what happens when a man continually moves his employment and therefore the attachment of earnings order falls.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We on these Benches are perhaps more attached to collection by attachment of earnings orders than Members on Benches opposite. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I have some sympathy with the difficulties that he described which are faced by British industry. It does not like collecting these moneys. However, do not those difficulties underline the case that I have just made in proposing payment via the Inland Revenue? It could be done much more simply by altering the coding.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for having put down the amendment so that we can discuss the problem. If it achieved one object, it was to evoke the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in which he depicted so graphically and accurately the relationship between the wife who looks after the child and her husband who goes out to work to earn the money.
There are occasions where attachment of earnings orders are a justified way of enabling the wife to have part of the money which her husband has earned so that she can look after the child. I accept that employers do not like having to undertake what we might call tax deductions or rather deductions on behalf of the Government. The noble and learned
588
Lord referred to VAT and PAYE as well as sick pay benefits. These are all what one might call irritants to employers who do not wish to have to carry out the task. However, there are occasions when they have to.
My noble friend made a reasoned speech, but he went slightly over the top, if I may say so, when he said that he did not wish to see companies impoverished by industrial relations disputes over attachment of earnings orders. I do not believe that that would be likely. He suggested that we ought to introduce them when the country could afford them. With great respect to my noble friend, that is not a relevant argument because I do not believe that the success of the country will depend on the few companies that have to make deductions under attachment of earnings orders.
The trouble is that the amendment would remove the power given in the Bill which allows the courts to make an attachment of earnings order when making a maintenance order. My noble friend was right to remind us that at present courts can only require a debtor to pay an attachment of earnings order at the time of making a maintenance order provided that he consents. The fact is that few debtors do consent. In 1989 less than 10 per cent. agreed to an attachment of earnings order being made.
Everyone is aware of the distress and anxiety caused to those who are dependent on maintenance payments when those payments do not materialise. As the noble and learned Lord said, the attachment of earnings order is a good way of achieving the aim but it is not foolproof. It ought to ensure regularity of payment in normal circumstances. The debtor who is forgetful or careless in making his maintenance payments or who seeks to play the maintenance system does not when an attachment of earnings order is in existence receive the opportunity to avoid his payments.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked what happened if the fellow then left his job and went to another one. The employer has a duty under the 1971 Act to inform the court that the person has left. The employee also has a duty to inform the court that he has left. It is possible that people do not do so, in which case the man concerned will be caught for being in arrears again.
An attachment of earnings order is an efficient and effective enforcement tool. Its use should not be dependent either on the debtor's consent or the debtor's default. We must remember that this is not the only method of payment. The courts have four alternatives at their disposal. The attachment of earnings orders should be available whenever a court judges that they would be the most preferred method of payment and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case before it. The Bill does not require an attachment of earnings order to be made in every case where the debtor is in employment. It is only one of the available options open to the court. The court will select the best option in the circumstances.
I appreciate the concern of employers that an increase in the number of attachment of earnings

589
orders may place unreasonable administrative burdens on them. My noble friend mentioned that useful discussions had taken place with employers about possible ways of streamlining the administrative arrangements for the discharge of attachment orders in the context of community charge enforcement. I am happy to give my noble friend the assurance that we shall undertake similar consultation in the maintenance context before this Bill is brought into force. I can also confirm that active consideration is being given to an increase in the administrative charge which employers are entitled to deduct when operating an attachment order—I know my noble friend will welcome Tie that—bearing in mind that the present charge of 50p has remained unchanged for several years.
My noble friend remarked that some people may question the fact that the company they work for is taking away money which they have earned and paying it to their wives when they do not wish their wives to have that money. Nevertheless, there is a simple answer to that question, as the employees concerned will realise. The money is taken away because the court has decreed that that is what should happen.
4 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend and others who have spoken, even if they have not all spoken in favour of my amendment. Nevertheless, the discussion has widened the argument. I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving an undertaking that his department will consult the CBI before the Bill and any orders that come from it are brought into effect. I am grateful to him for saying that consideration is being given to increasing the administrative charge which employers are entitled to deduct when operating an attachment order as the present amount is ridiculously small. I did not think it was worth even mentioning the present small amount. In the circumstances, I believe we have gone as far as we can on this matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 30 to 34 and insert:
"(b) the debtor, within a period of fourteen days immediately following the hearing, has not taken the opportunity of opening an account from which payments under the order may be made in accordance with the method of payment proposed to be ordered under that paragraph and the court is satisfied that the debtor has failed, without reasonable excuse, to open such an account,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 14, which is the mirror image of Amendment No. 5. The amendment is intended to be helpful in giving a closer definition to the word "opportunity" in Clause 1(6). Under Clause 1 the High Court or the county courts can make a method of payment order. If the court decides that payment of a maintenance order should be made by standing order or direct debit, it will be necessary for the debtor to have a bank account.
590
Clause 1(6) provides that if the debtor does not have a bank account the court should give him an opportunity to open one. If the debtor refuses to take up this opportunity, the court can then order him to open an account.
The amendment will mean that if a debtor has not opened a bank account within 14 days of the hearing he will be deemed not to have taken advantage of the opportunity to do so. The court will then be able to proceed to make an order that a debtor should open a bank account with the minimum of delay. By defining the word "opportunity" the amendment should remove any possible arguments over what period of time constitutes a reasonable opportunity. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I have considerable sympathy with the approach which the noble Lord has taken in these amendments. However, I am bound to tell him that believe the provisions of Amendment No. 5 would impose an unnecessary and possibly undesirable timetable on the exercise of the courts' discretion.
We are proposing that a court should be able to order a maintenance debtor to open an account from which standing order payments may be made unless it is satisfied that he has a reasonable excuse for failing to do so. It is common ground that the debtor must be given a reasonable opportunity to try to open an account, so that if he fails to do so the court is able to decide whether that is for some good reason outside his control or whether he has simply decided to drag his heels or invent difficulties where none exist. How long a period is needed may vary from case to case, having regard to all the individual circumstances. In some cases the question may be simple. In others it may not be straightforward, for example where a person has been refused facilities by one bank but another bank is willing to open an account subject to various conditions. It is possible that 14 days will not be long enough to provide an adequate safeguard in those circumstances as the effect of the amendment would be to allow a court to make an order at the end of this period.
While we sympathise with the aim of the amendment, we believe that the better course would be not to attempt to fetter the discretion of the court to decide for itself how long to adjourn proceedings in order to allow a debtor to take steps to open an account. One must remember that proceedings have to be adjourned in order for an account to be opened. It is only when an account has been opened that the proceedings can be recommenced to allow the maintenance order or the standing order to be paid. The court will not be able to make an order requiring the debtor to pay the required sums unless it is satisfied that he has failed without reasonable excuse to do so voluntarily. That should be a sufficient safeguard. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that on the whole his amendment would fetter the courts and that it would be better to leave the matter to their judgment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I believe that 14 days is quite a long time. It is surprising what can be done in that space of time. I do not believe that to impose

591
a time limit would fetter the courts unduly. If the limit were effective and enforced, it would make some of these people get a move on. In many cases it is the delay which constitutes the menace to the person looking after the family. These proceedings can be dragged out in so many ways by so many procedures. I believe that a 14 day limit could help to concentrate the mind of those who might otherwise be inclined to increase delay by every possible means. However, I have heard what the Minister said and I shall carefully read his remarks tomorrow. We may come back to the matter at a later stage; in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert:
("(6A) In deciding in the case of a maintenance order, which of the powers under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) above, it is to exercise the court shall have regard to any representations made—

(i) by the debtor,

(ii) by the creditor, and

(iii) if the applicant for the qualifying periodical maintenance order is a person other than the creditor, by that other person.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is an attempt to add what I might describe as a helpful touch of consistency to the Bill. It will ensure that the provisions of Clause 1 relating to the High Court and the county courts are similar to those relating to the magistrates' courts contained in Clause 2.
Under Clause 2 a magistrates' court will have the same powers as the High Court and county courts to decide what method of payment should be used for a maintenance order. When the magistrates' court decides which of the powers to exercise—that is, the method of payment it will require —Clause 2(5) will require the court to take account of the comments of the debtor and/or the creditor on any possible methods of payment. The amendment seeks to ensure that when a High Court or a county court decides whether or not to make a method of payment order, they, too, will have to take account of the comments of the debtor or the creditor on any possible methods of payment. What goes for the goose should properly go for the gander. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I do not think magistrates would like to be described as geese.
Earl Ferrers: I liked the suggestion of the noble Lord that he was trying to be helpful in seeking to add a touch of consistency to the Bill. I believe his amendment virtually repeats the provision in Clause 1(8) which requires the court, in deciding whether to exercise any of its powers to order the method of payment either by standing order or by attachment of earnings, to,
"have regard to any representations made by any interested party".
That covers a decision to exercise either of the powers in Clause 1(4).
592
If the noble Lord's intention is to replace subsection (8) then in our view the amendment is too narrow in that it does not give a right to make representations in respect of proposed orders under subsection (6), which deals with opening a bank account, or subsection (7), which concerns revoking, reviving, varying or suspending means of payment orders.
I suggest that the amendment could also be undesirable in that its drafting may suggest that the High Court or county court will in every case exercise its powers over the method of payment. The High Court and county court may not do so in every case, as they have discretion whether to exercise that power, in contrast with the magistrates' court, which has a mandatory obligation to specify a method of payment.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that what is set out in the Bill is better than what he has proposed.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am not entirely convinced by that explanation. I should welcome further time to consider how the points made by the noble Earl would impinge on the other clauses of the Bill. While reserving the right to come back to the matter at a later stage, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 48, after ("shall") insert ("having given notice of any such application to all interested parties").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 8 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 15. The phrase "having given notice" is at the centre of the matter.
The amendment would mean that when a debtor or creditor applies to the High Court or county court for a method of payment order to be changed, the court will have a duty to notify the other party of the application. We are concerned with the matter of notification to applicants because, while it is a general truth that justice must be seen to be done, we believe that it should be seen to be done by all of those to whom it is done.
Under Clause 1 of the Bill the court has discretion to make or change a method of payment order. The court can do so when the order is made or at a later date. The court has the right to exercise that power in two ways. It can do so either while other proceedings concerning the order are being heard by the court or if the debtor or creditor makes an application. The amendment will ensure that the court has a duty to notify the debtor or creditor of any application so that he or she will have the opportunity to make whatever comments seem fit. It would also bring the procedure in the High Court or county court into line with that set out in Clause 4 concerning the magistrates' court —another pleasing touch of consistency, if the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Once again I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down the amendment, with which I

593
have considerable sympathy. The requirement that the court must have regard to any representations made by the debtor, the creditor and the applicant, if different from the creditor, was included in the Bill as an obvious safeguard in order to ensure that the court specified the most appropriate method of payment in the circumstances of any particular case. Clearly the safeguard is worthless if one or more of the interested parties is not aware of what is going on.
Let us consider each of the parties in turn. The applicant would be aware of the proceedings, for obvious reasons—he or she (usually she) wants the money. The debtor will also be aware of the proceedings since they will arise only in connection with an application for him to pay maintenance. In the great majority of cases the applicant and the creditor will be the same person. However, I accept that there may be exceptional cases in which they could be different. One could take the example of an application for maintenance of the child being made by the mother, with a request that the funds are paid, for example, into the account of the grandmother who is looking after the child. The grandmother might not approve of that method of payment and obviously her views should be made known to the court. It is possible that there may be simpler ways of ensuring that interested parties, such as the grandmother, are given notice of the proceedings than the method suggested in the noble Lord's amendment.
I should like to give further consideration to this matter. It is important and I should like to consider how best to deal with it. It is possible that an amendment to the Bill may be required, but it may also le possible, and perhaps more satisfactory, to deal with the point through the rules of the court. If the noble Lord would be good enough to let me consider the matter I should be grateful.
Lard Morris of Castle Morris: I am delighted that the noble Earl has seen the matter in that way. I am grateful to him for what he has said. In the light of his assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 14, after ("where") insert ("the person who was").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 9 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 16. They are both drafting amendments designed to make the particular provisions a little clearer. In both cases we a -e trying to differentiate between the person who is the applicant and the person who is the creditor. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My only objection to the amendment is that it is unnecessary. Since it is unnecessary to add those words to an already lengthy Bill they should not be added. The Bill is perfectly clear as it is. Indeed, the terminology is reflected in the third line of Amendment No. 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
I cannot see that either in logic or grammar the words add anything at all. Obviously it is not a matter
594
to be challenged to a Division, but I ask the noble Earl not to press the amendment today. There will be plenty of opportunities to add such an amendment if necessary. Perhaps he will discuss the matter with the draftsman before the next stage.
Earl Ferrers: I was dreading such an observation from the noble and learned Lord, whose knowledge of the law is so great. When he says that to include the words "the person who was" is unnecessary I am bound to defer to a substantial degree to his legal knowledge. I would only pit against his observation the point that, while he suggested that. I should get in touch with parliamentary counsel, it was parliamentary counsel who suggested the wording. I would not have been so impertinent as to put in such words myself on such a legal matter without the advice of parliamentary counsel. It is the view of parliamentary counsel that the words are necessary.
I should like to suggest that, in view of the high standing in which the parliamentary draftsman is always held in your Lordships' House, we accept the amendments and if on reading Hansard the parliamentary draftsman says "My goodness me, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has made a most impressive speech and I was wrong", I should be quite happy to bring forward an amendment at a later stage. However, I do not believe that he will say that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The parliamentary draftsman may well be prepared to reconsider the matter in view of what has been said. I would not press the noble Earl unless it seemed to me absolutely clear that the words add nothing to the Bill as printed. The Bill as printed is lucid, intelligible and beyond any ambiguity. It means exactly what it says. With all respect to the noble Earl and parliamentary counsel, they are frightened of the shadow of words. I ask the noble Earl to reconsider the matter carefully with parliamentary counsel, who is well capable of considering an argument and changing his mind if he thinks it justified.
Earl Ferrers: From behind me I hear the advice of my noble friend Lord Harvington, who says that parliamentary counsel does not often change his mind. I shall consult with the parliamentary draftsman on this matter. I shall not go to the stake for it. If the noble and learned Lord feels that those words are inappropriate and wrong, I shall go back to parliamentary counsel and ask his opinion. If the noble and learned Lord wishes, I shall bring back this matter at Report stage. I should have thought that it would be the Committee's desire to take parliamentary counsel's view but if the noble and learned Lord wishes me to take back this matter, I shall be content to do so.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
Earl Ferrers: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: At this point I want to revert to a matter that I ventured to raise at Second Reading; namely, the question of family courts. I think that there was some misunderstanding. I could have raised this matter in regard either to Clause 1, which deals with the High Court and the many county courts, or Clause 2, which deals with all the multifarious magistrates' courts as well.
When introducing this Bill so lucidly the noble Earl referred to the proliferation of courts and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the fragmentation of jurisdiction. It seems to me that both those terms are abundantly justified. I ventured to point out that it was a wonderful opportunity to consider a unified system of family courts in place of the present proliferation and fragmentation.
Family courts were suggested originally as long ago as the 1950s. The idea gradually gathered support. An early supporter was Judge Jean Graham-Hall, who was immensely experienced in that jurisdiction. However there then occurred two momentous adhesions. The first was the recommendation of the Finer Committee which set out at considerable length and with great cogency the arguments in favour and unreservedly recommended a system of family courts. The second was consideration of the matter by the Family Committee of the Law Council, which also recommended the system of family courts. That proposal was endorsed by the Council of the Law Society and enthusiastically put forward in this Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The third important adherent was the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, with her vast experience. I understand that she is not only unreservedly in favour of what is proposed but leads the campaign in support.
I venture to say that at Second Reading I understood from my noble and learned friend at the stage of consideration of the Commons amendments to the Courts and Legal Services Bill that he was in favour. I must tell the Committee how that situation arose. The proposal was to identify some special county courts with a specialist jurisdiction in matrimonial matters. That was welcomed on its merits by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The noble Lord went on to say that he regarded it as an important step toward a system of family courts. I ventured to echo that sentiment and when my noble and learned friend replied I understood him to accept it.
The Committee will remember that when Gladstone was challenged about something which apparently he had said as reported in Hansard and which was inconsistent with his present assertion, he always used to say, "Read on". Sure enough, in the next paragraph one found that he had qualified what he had appeared to say categorically. I was concerned lest I had done my noble and learned friend an injustice. But first I must quote from what the noble Earl said at Second Reading on receiving a brief from the Box. I shall not deal with everything he said but he ended by saying that:
"that does not mean that it will lead to what the noble and learned Lord has described as family courts".—[Official Report, 29/11/90; col. 1090.]
596
I turned back in Hansard to read what my noble and learned friend had in fact said in the context which I described. He said:
"I believe that these are important steps towards a unified family jurisdiction"—
I emphasise the word "jurisdiction"
"which may be the right answer to the attainment of the goals which have sometimes been described under different phrases in the past".—[Official Report, 24/10/90; col. 1359.]
The different phrases in the past were family courts. I did not hear it but I cannot read that other than as accepting what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said.
It seems to me that there is a danger of some backtracking on what my noble and learned friend said and that there may be a different view in the Home Office from that in my noble and learned friend's department. That would be nothing unusual. Departments tend to have different views. However, I am anxious to have what my noble and learned friend said vindicated. I do not mind if the noble Earl puts it in exactly the same words as I have just quoted.
While dealing with family courts perhaps I may mention one other matter. In the 1960s the Home Office published a consultation document proposing family councils—a council of the extended family to deal with juvenile problems. In the atmosphere of the 1960s it was not very well received. As an institution the family was not particularly advocated at that time in some quarters and the matter was dropped. I ask the noble Earl whether he will have that document taken out of its pigeon-hole in his office, have it dusted down and reconsider it in the context of family courts.
Baroness Faithfull: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing up this matter under this part of the Bill. As he said, I am chairman of the Family Courts Campaign. We welcome the objects of giving priority to the children's welfare if the family breaks up and clarifying parental responsibilities for the care of the child as well as the particular reference to financial provisions. However, this Bill goes completely against the Children Act 1989 which passed from this Chamber.
The most important area for comment of the family campaign is the proposal to set up an agency. That appears to be a retrogressive step in view of the advance toward family courts taken in the Children Act. One of the fundamental features of the family court is that it will be a unified institution, applying a unified set of legal rules to all families. The idea is to eliminate overlapping jurisdictions and the risk that families may find themselves involved simultaneously in different proceedings in different courts. The Children Act clearly recognises that need for uniformity in providing one concurrent jurisdiction —as has been said by the noble and learned Lord—and power to consolidate proceedings. To divert claims for child maintenance to an agency goes wholly against that trend. The campaign therefore opposes the proposal that assessment of child maintenance should be undertaken by an administrative agency.
Families going through the upheaval and breakdown need a package of support services which a family court and attendant welfare services would

597
provide. There would be no advantage to families in having child maintenance assessed and enforced by a separate agency. Indeed many lone parents are very anxious that those functions are in effect to be taken over by the Department of Social Security. Their experience of the Department of Social Security inevitably forces them to regard it and the officials as hostile to them.
The campaign feels sure that the way to improve the lot of families struggling to cope with marriage breakdown is to set up a family court able to deal sensitively with all issues, supported by a welfare service able to offer conciliation and other support services. I am therefore grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing the matter before the Committee.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Earl replies, perhaps I may say that nearly all of us agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness have said. However, now is not the moment to state it. If we support the noble and learned Lord's position against the clause stand part, we kill the Bill. The Bill relates to maintenance. That is important and we all consider that the Bill should go through its stages quickly. But however much we support what the noble and learned Lord said, we cannot agree to killing the Bill at this moment.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his intervention. I understand the reason why the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend introduced this matter—parliamentary ingenuity knows no bounds. Clause 1 is a fairly modest clause giving certain powers about maintenance: enforcement to the courts. It is nothing to do with family courts.
The noble and learned Lord is a great advocate of family courts. He therefore took the opportunity, ingenious as he was—possibly fortified by the fact that I withdrew the last amendment in order to be conciliatory to him—to discuss a matter which has nothing to do with Clause 1.
The Government are considering the means of rationalising and improving the family justice system and that is very important. However, it is too early to say where that will lead us. It raises matters far beyond the scope of the fairly limited aspects of the Bill.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has made proposals to concentrate family business before a limited number of county courts. That seems a sensible step in our programme to improve the family justice system, but it does not amount to setting up a single unified family court.
Lard Simon of Glaisdale: If the noble Earl will allow me to intervene, perhaps I may say that no one has proposed a single family court. What has been proposed is a limited structure—a hierarchy of family courts.
Earl Ferrers: I dare say. I am explaining the position to the noble and learned Lord without going into t00 much detail about the virtues or otherwise of a family court. The principle is being considered by my
598
noble friends and my noble and learned friend. A committee has been set up to consider the matter. The noble and learned Lord seemed to consider that there was disagreement between the Home Office and my noble and learned friend's department. I cannot think what makes him believe that there was disagreement between two such eminent departments. I assure him that there is no difference of view between them. The review of the family justice system is being co-ordinated by a committee on which both the Lord Chancellor's department and the Home Office are represented.
I understand the anxiety of my noble friend Lady Faithfull about child maintenance. She stated that she did not want it enforced or assessed by an agency. She leads a campaign —as she does with all matters to which she addresses her mind—with great vigour. The legislative proposals to introduce a new agency will be brought before Parliament later this Session in a separate Bill. Noble Lords will have an opportunity to debate that Bill then.
Baroness Faithfull: I recognise the Minister's surprise at the matter being brought up at this stage. I understand the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. However, if one passes such a Bill, it cannot float in the air without administration. It was perhaps understandable that we took the opportunity to put forward the way that it should be administered. I understand that we may not be able to undertake anything now while discussing clause stand part.
However, I hope that my noble friend will forgive us for putting the subject forward. If one has a Bill it must be administered. How will it be administered? If it is to be administered through an agency it is in contradiction of the Children Act 1989.
Earl Ferrers: The agency will operate only if the Bill instituting it is passed into law. Until that happens the law exists as at present, and the clause will be administered by the courts as they administer it now.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Orders for periodical payment in magistrates' courts: means of payment]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 42, after ("a") insert ("qualifying").
The noble Lord said: It is a gentle, probing little amendment with which we seek some clarification. The amendment will ensure that paragraphs (a) and (b) of new Section 59 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 both refer to "qualifying maintenance order". At present paragraph (a) refers to "qualifying maintenance order" and paragraph (b) refers to orders that are not maintenance orders. It is unclear why the term "qualifying maintenance order" is used only in paragraph (a) and not in paragraph (b). It begs the question of how maintenance orders which are not qualifying maintenance orders—whatever they are—are to be treated. The amendment clarifies the matter and achieves a pleasing consistency. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am glad for two reasons that the noble Lord has put down the amendment. I confess that I found the position extremely puzzling. It

599
illuminates the complexity of the Bill. That is no more than a characteristic of modern drafting. Leading up to the appointment of the Renton Committee on Preparation of Legislation in 1975, there were constant complaints of the prolixity, complexity and lack of clarity of our statutes. The Renton Committee made a number of recommendations, of which one was extremely important. It endorsed a memorandum put forward by the two senior Scottish judges. They said in effect, "If you draft in simple general rules that is something we can cope with. We cope with it every day and we can apply it to particular situations. But if you try to cover every foreseeable situation you are sure to miss some that turn up in the courts. The courts will then be completely at a loss as will be the litigants when led into litigation". Later in the Bill we shall see striking examples which illustrate the cogency of that observation and its acceptance by the Renton Committee.
I found the provision extraordinarily difficult to puzzle out. The form of the clause suggests that subsections (1) (a) and (1) (b) are comprehensive, but they are not. As one reads and rereads the provision one sees that there is a missing element; it is the non-qualifying maintenance order which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, identified. One then goes on to ask why it is not there. Without certainty, I believe the reason is that a non-qualifying maintenance order would be outside the jurisdiction of the magistrates' court because it would be a maintenance order in respect of which the respondent, the debtor, was not ordinarily resident in England and Wales. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me whether I am right.
This is an extraordinary Bill to put before ordinary men and women. In respect of legislation such as the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 one would expect the person affected to take his case to a solicitor, but that is not so with a Bill of this kind. On the contrary, the people concerned are primarily husband and wife and, by extension, the citizens advice bureaux. It is wrong to face them with this kind of obscurity and complexity.
Nor should they be driven to consult a solicitor. One extremely unfortunate effect of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 will be a diminution in the number of high street solicitors and the concentration of their legal services in large towns and cities. They will not be available to advise on the meaning of a Bill, which is extraordinarily difficult to grasp. For those reasons the Committee is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for bringing the matter forward.
Earl Ferrers: I am sure that the Committee is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for bringing the matter forward, but I am not sure that I am. I accept that it is complicated. Perhaps I may explain the situation.
Under Clause 2 of the Bill a magistrates' court is required to specify a particular method of payment when making a qualifying maintenance order. There is only one essential condition which must be satisfied for a maintenance order to become a qualifying maintenance order as the noble and learned Lord said.
600
It is that the debtor must, at the time when the maintenance order is made, ordinarily be resident in England and Wales. That means that he must be within the jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts. In other words, the order could be enforced by a magistrates' court.
If a debtor is ordinarily resident outside the court's jurisdiction—for instance, in Europe, in Scotland or in Northern Ireland—when the maintenance order is made, the court is not required under the Bill to specify a particular method of payment. It is not prevented from doing so but the Bill is based on the principle that it is best to let the magistrates who are hearing the case decide whether such a requirement should be included in a maintenance order which can only be enforced where the debtor is living.
The court can only enforce an order in England and Wales. If the order has to go outside the magistrates' court's jurisdiction—say, to a country in Europe—it will be for that country to enforce the order. We have reciprocal arrangements with many countries. That is the reason the two subsections are slightly different. However, as a matter of general principle we do not believe that it is sensible to require the courts to make orders which are unenforceable.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his support. In so far as I fleetingly understood what the noble Earl said, I should like to take the matter away and think about it. There is at the moment a blinding flash of clarity in my mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 17 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 10 at end insert:
("(7A) In any case where a magistrates' court has power to order money to be paid periodically by the debtor to the creditor and the debtor fails to attend court either in person or by his representative despite having been served with notice of the proceedings, the court shall make an order unless satisfied that it is undesirable to do so.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. Both amendments are concerned with the failure to attend hearings or to provide documents. There are many cases of this kind in which the debtor is properly served but deliberately fails to attend a court hearing in order to avoid payment. That leads to long delays in settlement and those delays are the cause of stress in many cases. We need to give the magistrates' courts a new duty in such cases to make orders to discourage debtors from the deliberate evasion of their responsibilities.
I am sure that the new power will be widely welcomed, particularly by the custodial parent who all too often sees the ex-partner playing cat and mouse with the court and often getting away with it for a long time. The new power will tackle the problems of delay and evasion in a way that nothing else in the Bill

601
approaches. It will have a salutary effect on the willingness of any debtor to co-operate with the courts.
I now turn to Amendment No. 19, which deals with another problem that the Bill fails to tackle; that is, the ability of many debtors to hide from the courts the real level of their earnings or capital and deliberately to reduce those in order to lower the cash level awarded within the maintenance order. It is human nature so to do and it is the job of the law to regulate human nature.
The National Council for One Parent Families has wide experience in the field of maintenance settlements. It informs me that there are many cases in which the debtor takes that course of action, claiming to the courts that his income is extremely low. The lone parent knows only too well that reserves of income are carefully hidden away from the prying eyes of the court or that the new mortgage for the £200,000 house could not have been achieved on a declared annual income of £10,000.
It is becoming more and more important because of the growing level of self-employment which the Government have been so keen to encourage. It will become more important still as the Government are intending to make the payment of child maintenance by absent parents an important facet of social policy and of the social security system. We are no longer dealing with the highly paid executive who has ways of manipulating his income. Increasingly, we shall be faced with the need to ensure that the self-employed skilled tradesman cannot evade his parental responsibilities.
The effect of this amendment will be to encourage debtors to provide accurate information at the earliest possible opportunity or to ensure that the courts will offer the creditor redress in cases where he or, in exceptional cases, she fails to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Under the Children Act 1989, the welfare of the child is paramount. The anxiety of a mother who cannot obtain money at a time when she is also going through a divorce or separation is devastating for any child. Anything which can be achieved to speed up the process is to be recommended.
Earl Ferrers: Both these amendments would require the magistrates' court to proceed as a result of a party's failure either because the defendant fails to attend the hearing or because one of the parties fails to produce the relevant documents required by the court
I have great sympathy with the thought behind the proposal. I agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull that when there are divorce proceedings and maintenance orders must be made, nothing is more distressing than for people to find that they cannot obtain the money to which they are entitled.
The incorporation of these amendments into the Bill is unnecessary and, in some ways, inadvisable. Their inclusion would limit the discretion rightly given to magistrates. The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
602
already allows a magistrates' court to proceed in the absence of the defendant if it so wishes. I do not believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord adds anything useful to that power.
Similarly, there is no restriction on what inferences magistrates may draw if a party fails to produce evidence. So magistrates are already able to do what they believe to be desirable in the individual circumstances of the case. My fear is that the amendments would give the appearance that the courts were not treating the parties fairly, thus raising rather than lowering the temperature of proceedings which can already be difficult. The courts already have the power to operate in the manner suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I take it that the Minister refers to the sort of matter instanced in Dwyer v. Collins in 1852. Matters can be dealt with in the county court through the rules of evidence. At present however, there is no discovery procedure in the magistrates' court whereby evidence must be disclosed in advance.
We shall need to think more carefully about the matter. I am advised that the powers exist but that they are hardly ever used. Our amendments are intended to give positive power to the courts and to encourage them to resuscitate what is virtually moribund. I may return to the matter on Report; at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders for periodical payment in magistrates' courts: proceedings by clerk and penalty for breach]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 6, after ("commenced") insert ("by virtue of the authority").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 21. These are drafting amendments which I am sure will commend themselves to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. They clarify the extent of the clerk's power when taking enforcement proceedings on behalf of a creditor.
The first amendment confirms that the clerk must discontinue any proceedings which are commenced under the authority when that authority is cancelled. The second amendment makes it clear that whether the clerk is acting in enforcement proceedings which are commenced at the request of the person whose benefit payments are made or under an authority given by that person, that person continues to have the same liability for all costs which are properly incurred in or related to those proceedings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 10, leave out ("or (3) above") and insert ("above at his request or under subsection (3) above by virtue of his authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 49, at end insert:
("(6) If an employer or fellow employee of the debtor harasses or victimises the debtor because he is subject to an attachment of earnings order the debtor may make a complaint to a relevant justice giving details of the harassment or victimisation.
(7) If the relevant justice is satisfied that the nature of the alleged harassment or victimisation is such as to justify the relevant court exercising its power under subsection (8) below, he shall issue a summons directed to the employer or fellow employee requiring him to appear before the relevant court to answer the complaint.
(8) On the hearing of the complaint, the relevant court may order the employer or fellow employee to pay a sum not exceeding £100. Subsection (4) of this section shall apply to this provision as it does to subsection (3).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with harassment or, as so many people call it these days, ha-rassment.
Lord Tordoff: I was hoping that the noble Lord would not use the second pronounciation.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: After 20 years as a poor provincial Protestant professor of English literature, it probably hurts me more than Members of the Committee to hear the word being so hideously mispronounced. However, harassment is the subject of the amendment and we are offering to make additional provisions which we hope may be helpful. The effect of the additional provisions will be to give to people who are subject to attachment of earnings orders some protection from victimisation or harassment by their employers or fellow employees.
We consider it important that a debtor who is paying maintenance by an attachment of earnings order should not be harassed or victimised by the people with whom he works as a result of that order. As I pointed out on Second Reading, this is not a piece of lily-livered, soft sentimentalism in favour of some recalcitrant father. It is put forward in the hope that it will encourage people to use attachment of earnings orders in the proper way.
An employer who does not comply with an attachment of earnings order can already be fined £100. This provision means that any other breach such as that set out above will lead to the imposition of the same penalty. Previously, an attachment of earnings order could only be made if a debtor had already defaulted on payment of an order. The effect of the Bill's provisions will be that an attachment of earnings order can be imposed even though no default has occurred. In spite of that, people still associate attachment of earnings orders with someone who does not honour his or her responsibilities. It is in the nature of humanity that the stereotype will stick. It is important that all people, particularly those who have not been in default in any way, should be protected from harassment or victimisation.
The Australian legislation on child maintenance, I am told, contains a provision in similar terms. It may be that here, as in the game of cricket, we should heed the maxim: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
Earl Ferrers: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for a penetrating intervention that keeps us on the straight and narrow as regards the English language. I agree with him. I think that the word ha-rassment is a terrible Americanisation. Of course, it should be harassment. It is almost as bad as when the word "missile" is referred to as "missal". I always thought that a "missal" was a Roman Catholic prayer book. There is a trend towards use of the wrong words in English.
5 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I am not sure that the writers of the Official Report will be grateful to us for casting our words in such terms. I look forward with interest to seeing how the discussion is reported in tomorrow's edition of Hansard.
Earl Ferrers: It is because it is so difficult for those who report for Hansard that there is a great deal to be said for not speaking too much. Some of the things which the noble Lord has said and which he has prompted me to say would not have been said had the noble Lord been a little more thoughtful of the Hansard writers.
After that diversion, perhaps we may come back to the amendment. It is unacceptable for an employee to suffer harassment or victimisation because he is subject to an attachment of earnings order. I am not aware of any evidence to show that that takes place. The procedure has been available for approximately 20 years and I should have thought that some evidence would have appeared before now in that regard.
While I understand the feelings that prompted the amendment, I am not convinced that it is necessary. However, there is a more serious objection to the amendment. The Bill applies only to attachment of earnings orders that are made in respect of maintenance proceedings. It would be invidious to protect those who are subject to attachment of earnings orders in respect of maintenance orders from harassment and victimisation but not those who are subject to such orders in respect of judgment debts or administration orders. For that reason it would be unfortunate to distinguish attachment of earnings orders.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: On the contrary, it would be desirable to protect some people even if all cannot be protected. We do not want anyone to be put off paying through fear of that kind of stigma. In our view it would be useful to start along a righteous path even though the Bill does not go the whole way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, retaining leave to come back to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]

  Use of bailiffs in recovery of fines etc
  —(1) Where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a maintenance order of a magistrates' court and the court decides to issue a warrant of distress under section 76 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 for the purpose of levying the sum and the warrant is not directed to the constables of the

  605
  police area in which the warrant is issued, the warrant shall not be executed otherwise than by a bailiff holding a certificate issued under the Distress for Rent Rules 1988.
  (2) A warrant of distress issued under section 76 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 shall provide that—

  (a) a person appointed to execute the warrant shall make reasonable efforts to make personal contact with the person against whom the distress is to be levied and, upon doing so, shall show that person their written authorisation to act;

  (b) where a person appointed to execute the warrant discovers that the person against whom the distress is to be levied is either in hospital, has a mental or physical disability or a language difficulty that the warrant will not be executed without further instruction from the magistrates' court;

  (c) tools, books, vehicles, and other items of equipment as are necessary to the defaulter for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation shall not be taken under the warrant;

  (d) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the defaulter and his family shall not be taken under the warrant;

  (e) any items bought with social fund loans or grants shall not be taken under the warrant;

  (f) a reserve price is fixed for any distress which is to be sold at public auction;

  (g) there is a maximum charge, for expenses and any other costs, that the person executing the warrant may deduct out of the amount realised by sale of the distress.").

  The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with the subject of bailiffs. The Bill is concerned with the framework for setting and collecting maintenance. It dots not seek to review the existing arrangements for the enforcement of maintenance orders made by magistrates.
  One method of enforcing orders is the issue of warrants which may be carried out by bailiffs. It is a system of enforcement increasingly used by magistrates' courts, particularly in relation to the so-called coma unity charge. We are concerned about the effect of more frequent use of such enforcement in respect of maintenance orders if the Bill is passed.
  There is urgent need for reform and for more rigorous control of the activities of bailiffs appointed by the magistrates' courts who currently execute warrants largely unregulated. Bailiffs who work for the county courts are subject to regulation under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which stipulates goods which may not be seized under a warrant of execution. Most importantly, bailiffs acting on county court warrants are employed directly by the court. On the other hand, magistrates' courts rely on private bailiffs.
  The use of bailiffs is costly. In the context of maintenance payments, the debtor's capacity to meet future payments may easily be directly diminished. Under the warrant, goods belonging to the defaulter are seized by bailiffs and sold to raise money in order to pay off the amount that is owing. Also, bailiffs add on the cost of collection; that can be quite considerable. If essential goods are seized, the defaulter may need to use money that would have gone into future maintenance payments for the family in order to replace the goods which have been seized.
  Evidence has been brought before me from citizens advice bureaux all over the country concerning the actions of private bailiffs when they execute warrants issued by magistrates' courts. There are a number of problems which the amendment seeks to resolve. A citizens advice bureau in Cheshire recently reported that a bailiff charged £70 to the debtor for sending a van to collect that debtor's goods, even though no goods were taken away. Another citizens advice bureau in Essex reports a bailiff taking a second-hand three-piece suite which had been given by the local authority social services department. In addition, they took a black and white portable television set which did not belong to the debtor.
  Additional information arrived on my desk only this morning from the National Consumer Council. It gives many examples of bailiffs seizing goods which are essential to families. Refrigerators, washing machines and cookers are frequently taken. The removal of essential household goods causes families great hardship and forces them further into debt if they have to borrow money to replace those goods. The sum of £100 of exemption for clothing and bedding is ridiculously low. Sometimes the items have been purchased with public funds in order to meet a family's desperate need. The National Consumer Council brings to my attention one case of a mother with an incontinent daughter who lost a washing machine that had been bought with a social security fund loan which she had to continue to repay.
  Our first concern in proposing the amendment is that magistrates' courts should always use certificated bailiffs; that is, bailiffs who have been granted a certificate by a judge or registrar of the county court. That is currently the only means of quality control in the private bailiffs sector. The county court will not grant a certificate to an applicant who fails to satisfy the court that he is a fit and proper person to hold a certificate or that he has sufficient knowledge of the law about distress. Nor will a certificate be granted to an applicant who carries on or will be employed in any business which includes buying debts. When applying for a certificate a bailiff needs to disclose previous convictions for fraud, dishonesty or violence and needs to give information about debt judgments, insolvency, bankruptcy or receiverships. Once the procedure and the court are satisfied, the holder is given a general certificate which lasts for two years. No provision exists which ensures that bailiffs who are appointed by magistrates' courts hold such certificates.
  The amendment would be a great improvement. I beg to move.
  Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment. Social services departments find themselves in a very real dilemma. I know of cases such as those cited by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. In some cases bailiffs have removed equipment from the home which means that a mother has been unable to look after her child properly. Therefore, the child is in need of care and protection.

  607
  We have a situation where two Bills contradict each another and result in social workers being placed in an extraordinarily difficult situation.
  Lord Gisborough: I support the amendment. It does not give anything away; it states what magistrates should do in any event.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has produced yet another amendment which I find attractive. In some ways it grieves me to inform the noble Lord that I find it difficult to accept the amendment. I do not state that by way of being obstinate or through lack of understanding. I say it because of the technical problem that the amendment, like some others, produces.
  We understand the problems and distress that occur when bailiffs are involved, but we have had the benefit of the recently published report on private bailiffs by the National Consumer Council. The chairman of that council sent the report to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary with a request that he consider its suggestions in so far as they concern magistrates' courts. The report is receiving careful consideration. The amendment seeks to embody the proposals in primary legislation, but I hope I can give the Committee some encouragement by explaining the action which we propose to take. I should perhaps at the same time tell the Committee that we do not consider it would be sensible to accept the amendment at this stage.
  The Committee should be aware that the Home Office has established a group of practitioners from the magistrates' courts service which is charged with identifying and disseminating best practice. The group is well advanced with the preparation of guidance on fine enforcement. This will include material on bailiffs and will, among other things, include in effect a model contract for their employment. The group has been asked specifically to consider the National Consumer Council's proposals with a view to their inclusion, where appropriate, as best practice.
  The first part of the amendment would enable distress warrants to be executed only by the police or duly certificated bailiffs. I understand that the best practice guidance is likely to recommend that certificated bailiffs should be used; but we have here a good illustration of the dangers of incorporating into primary legislation very specific procedural requirements which, in due course and for one reason or another may have to be changed. The amendment would also have the effect of excluding the execution of warrants by the courts' own enforcement staff, which I assume is not the intention. Even if that omission were to be corrected it would be undesirable to tie the courts' enforcement powers to specific procedures under which certification of bailiffs is made and which, as I said, might be changed in due course. Indeed, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is planning a revision of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988.
  A similar point arises in relation to the remaining parts of the amendment which set out detailed
  608
  procedural rules. I do not wish to quarrel with their substance in all cases. For example, we are at present consulting the magistrates' courts service with a view to bringing the rules defining which goods may be distrained into line with the rules governing distress ordered by the higher courts, as proposed by the National Consumer Council. However, these are matters properly governed by rules and best practice guidance as the National Consumer Council envisages rather than by primary legislation. If we try to do this by primary legislation we shall almost certainly find, before too long, that some adjustment is needed which will then be difficult to accommodate.
  Some of the matters covered by the amendment are already covered by rules of court, and rightly so. We are looking hard at those rules and at the guidance to support them. With that background to our views I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will consider that on the whole it is better to leave these matters to rules and guidance rather than put them into primary legislation.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I detect encouraging signs of warmth, sympathy and movement from the Minister. I am delighted that he views this matter in the same way as we do. I am encouraged also by the fact that at his back is the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Other Members on the Government Back Benches seem to be supporting us.
  Earl Ferrers: I intervene only to say that it is always a frightening experience to have my noble friend behind me.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We on this side of the Committee sometimes regard the noble Baroness as one of our greatest friends.
  Earl Ferrers: So do we.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We are all agreed that in the operation of private bailiffs errors are made in some quantity, and there is wide concern about that. Private bailiffs certainly need to be regulated. I am not convinced that the best method of doing that is not through primary legislation, and the Bill offers a good opportunity. However, I prefer not to press the matter now. I should like to consider what has been said, encouraged by the warmth generated across the Dispatch Box by the noble Earl. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Revocation, variation, etc. of orders for periodical payment in magistrates' courts: general]:
  [Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Variation of orders for periodical payment made under Part I of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978]:
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Variation of orders for periodical payment made in magistrates' courts under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989]:
  [Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I mentioned earlier the recommendation of the senior Scottish judges to the Renton Committee and the endorsement by the Renton Committee of their recommendations: in other words, that there should be legislation in general rules which the courts can then apply to the specific instances that come before them rather than endeavouring to cover every situation that can be envisaged. This clause points the moral and adorns that tile. It deals with amendments to the Children Act of two Sessions ago. That Act was drafted in the current style of seeking to cover every possible situation.
  Sure enough, it was rapidly discovered that there were many situations that had not been envisaged. At every stage of the Children Bill's progress through this Chamber, where it originated, amendments were made to cover further situations, including on Third Reading. The Bill then went to the House of Commons and was returned to this Chamber with more amendments to it, almost all of them government amendments, which exceeded in length the Bill as originally sent to the other place.
  The matter did not even rest there. When the Courts and Legal Services Bill was going through Parliament last Session it included a long schedule —Schedule 12—making further amendments to the Children Act to cover situations that had been thought of since that Act came into force. Again, that happened when the Commons amendments to the Courts and Legal Services Bill were considered, and once more that long schedule had to be further amended.
  Now we have this Bill, with still more amendments to the Children Act. If ever there was a lesson to be learnt—the Renton Committee and the two great Scottish judges have been vindicated—it is from the history of the Children Act. Therefore I ask the Government and in particular the noble Earl, who is the Deputy Leader of the House, to draw the lesson that is finally pointed—or perhaps not so finally—by this clause and to reconsider our method of drafting.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, seems to have it in for the parliamentary draftsmen this evening. I realise that it is difficult when substantial amendments are made as they were to the Children Bill and also when they are tabled regarding this Bill. Clause 6 simply repeats the powers given under the Act in other maintenance legislation which is mentioned in Clauses 4 and 5. It is necessary to make these alterations to the Children Act.
  The noble and learned Lord knows far better than I that all the legislation dealing with maintenance orders is extremely complicated. It is complicated for those who are versed in the law and it is also unbelievably complicated for those who are not. I shall see to it that the Exocet which the noble and learned Lord has launched towards the parliamentary
  610
  draftsmen finds its home. I do not guarantee that I will support the noble and learned Lord's observations, but I shall see to it that those concerned are made aware of them.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to maintenance orders registered in or confirmed by magistrates' courts or registered in the High Court]:
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 36:
  Page 16, line 47, leave out ("respectively").
  Page 19, line 33, leave out ("specified in") and insert ("falling within").
  Page 19, line 39, leave out ("by standing order, etc. or not") and insert ("or not by any method of payment falling within section 59(6) of that Act").
  Page 22, line 50, leave out ("specified in") and insert ("falling within").
  Page 23, line 17, leave out ("specified in") and insert ("falling within").
  Page 24, line 13, leave out ("respectively").
  Page 26, line 48, leave out from ("Act") to ("be") in line 49.
  Page 27, line 5, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 6.
  Page 28, line 39, leave out ("in") and insert ("conferred by").
  Page 28, line 47, leave out ("respectively").
  The noble Earl said: These are all minor technical and drafting amendments which clarify the provisions of Schedule 1. That schedule applies the provisions of the Bill to the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
  In the Title:
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have a very small point to make concerning the Title which I hope the noble Earl will consider. I refer to the last words of the Title. If any words can be omitted from almost any Bill it is to the advantage of the public. The words are:
  "to amend section 10 of the Courts and Legal Services Act".
  That is another example of second and third thoughts having to be made. That section of the Courts and Legal Services Act is only amended in a line or two of the schedule relating to minor amendments. The majority of the amendments in that schedule are not mentioned in the Title. For the life of me I cannot see why that particular amendment is mentioned.
  Earl Ferrers: I assume the reason why that was included was because the parliamentary counsel considered it necessary. As with so many of the amendments with which the noble and learned Lord has sought to take issue, I shall discuss this matter with the parliamentary draftsmen as well. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not ask me to consider the whole Bill with the parliamentary draftsmen, but I shall certainly consider this aspect with them.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I express my thanks to the noble Earl for his usual courtesy. I would not like it to be thought that I "have it in" in any derogatory sense

  611
  towards parliamentary counsel. The present mode of drafting is wrong in many ways. I am very sorry that the recommendations of the Renton Committee were not accepted. I believe that part of the fault lies in the fact that the legislation committee of the Cabinet no longer performs its traditional role of scrutinising legislation from the point of view of draftsmanship. It appears that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, approves of that. He sat on the legislation committee for many years.
  I have nothing against the parliamentary draftsmen. Their job is made all the more difficult by the present style of drafting. From going through a schedule to this Bill it astonishes me to see the depth and thoroughness of the research that has taken place. I have worked in many capacities with parliamentary counsel. I have the highest admiration for their intellectual attainment and industry. I would like to see the style of drafting simplified not only for the benefit of the ordinary citizen but to ease the existence of parliamentary counsel.
  Earl Ferrers: I realise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has not "got it in" for the parliamentary counsel. I think that I used that expression in a somewhat colloquial sense. The noble and learned Lord was quite right to raise these matters. All of us hate the excessive use of words. It is only when people like the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, are vigilant that we are made to think again. Drafting has become more complicated. The whole of life and Bills have become more complicated. Those who have to try to deal with such Bills, whether as legal or lay people, are always glad when matters are simple. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsmen would consider the matter that way. I have a horrible trait myself in that I covet almost everyone else's job. However, the one job that I do not covet is that of the parliamentary draftsman. He loves it. I assure the noble and learned Lord that his views are passed to the parliamentary counsel together with his sympathy.
  Title agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
  5.28 p.m.

Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the committee.

Development Board for Rural Wales Bill
5.29 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Before I start on the purpose of the Bill I cannot resist giving a little plug to a particularly fine
612
exhibition of the development board's activities in the upper waiting hall in the Palace of Westminster. I hope that those who are interested in this Bill will visit that exhibition.
Baroness White: My Lords, some of us have already done so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the purpose of the Bill, as affected by Clause 1, is to increase the statutory financial limit for the Development Board for Rural Wales from the present level of £100 million to £175 million. Present forecasts suggest that the present limit will be reached during the 1991–92 financial year. It is therefore necessary to raise the limit now so as not to inhibit the development board's contribution to the development of that region in Wales for which it is responsible. It is customary when setting financial limits to determine a figure sufficient to cover a period of about five years. Accordingly, the Bill proposes that the limit should be £175 million.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I explain briefly the key objectives of the Development Board for Rural Wales. This can be succinctly said to be the expansion and diversification of the economy and the promotion of the social well-being of the people of mid-Wales. The development board's area covers the most rural parts of Wales. I am nervous about pronouncing the names but I shall try. They are: the districts of Ceredigion in Dyfed, Merionnydd in Gwynedd, and all three districts of Powys; Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Brecon. It is an area that covers some 40 per cent. of Wales but has only 8 per cent. of the total population of the Principality residing within its boundaries.
Operating since April 1977, the development board has played a major role in helping to increase the numbers of people living in mid-Wales. The board has used its resources efficiently. Its activities are focused on encouraging, stimulating and strengthening the private sector within its area. Indeed, its clearly articulated economic strategy is contingent on a thriving private sector, creating jobs, prosperity and confidence.
Your Lordships will be aware that one of the major economic challenges for rural areas is the exodus of population from rural to urban areas. This is particularly pronounced with the young people who are attracted by the perceived benefits of an urban lifestyle.
Reasonably good progress is being made to halt the outward flow. In 1971 on the night of the census there was a population of 185,000. The 1988 mid-year estimates, however, indicate that the population is now 213,500, an increase of 15·2 per cent. This increase coincides with the evolution of the development board's policies since its creation in 1977. However, we in government are aware that good as those figures are there are still difficulties with the continuing loss of young people and the continuing depopulation of the most remote rural areas and the particular challenge of a worsening age structure with high dependency ratios and a comparatively high population of people over retirement age. But I believe

613
that our policies help to create an environment in which young people can find new jobs in manufacturing industry, in tourism and in service industries, providing a much greater diversity of employment opportunities.
It is obvious to all that the virtues of a rural lifestyle combined with a skilled, talented, and committed workforce, together with an area of outstanding environmental scenic beauty, are appealing to many in business. There can be no doubt that entrepreneurship has indeed been cultivated and is beginning to flourish in rural Wales; and the signs are that this will go from strength to strength in the 1990s.
The development board plays a most important social role for the life of the people in its region. The board, by virtue of Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, can offer grants to local authorities and other statutory under takers and help or assist such measures as the board considers will contribute to the social development of its territory. Since 1979 some £4·9 million of grant assistance has been provided towards more that 3,800 social development projects with a total project cost of £23 million. It is this social role which has enabled the development board to weave a tapestry which, combined with its economic activities, has encouraged young people to stay in the area.
The board's primary objective is the creation of a self-sustaining rural economy. I believe that this is being achieved in no uncertain measure by the provision of an ever-widening range of manufacturing industry which leads to the creation of high quality jobs. 1t is this diverse economy which can complement the quality of life in terms of the culture, language and environment of mid-Wales.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships so that the Development Board for Rural Wales can continue its good work and continue to build on its past successes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
5.35 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am especially pleased to welcome the exhibition upstairs and to give our support to this small Bill. It is non-controversial and non-political and is very important for the people of mid-Wales. Perhaps I may make a modest claim. I was present at the discussions which took place at the Welsh Office between 1974 and 1976 and which culminated in the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976.
The idea that there should be a statutory rural development board for mid-Wales had its origins in the constituency Labour parties of Cardiganshire and Montgomeryshire, but it was the then Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. John Morris, who after much skirmishing took the significant step of setting up the statutory board.
I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the Bill, for summarising the key objectives of the 1976 Act, for describing the way in which the board has worked and for drawing our attention to its current commitments. I am sure that the Minister will join me in paying much
614
deserved tribute to Mr. Glyn Davies, the chairman of the board, and to the line of distinguished chairmen of the board. All those interested in mid-Wales must feel grateful to the board, its chairman and officers for what has been achieved.
The noble Baroness made clear that the main objective in setting up the board was to combat rural depopulation in the erstwhile five counties of mid-Wales. The five counties, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lady White will know, had a long history of rural depopulation, but the five counties had worked together in partnership for at least 21 years in the mid-Wales Industrial Development Association to combat depopulation. It is that experience of working together for 21 years that explains why the boundaries of the statutory board are where they are.
Notwithstanding the considerable achievements of the board, there can be no doubt that outward migration, particularly of young people between the ages of 15 and 25, remains a very serious problem. The population expansion of 15 per cent. to which the Minister referred conceals the continued migration of young people from mid-Wales and conceals the unbalanced age structure. We fear that as agriculture sheds further labour over the coming years, depopulation will become worse. That is not meant to be a counsel of despair. Nevertheless, it illustrates the need for a realistically-based, long-term economic and social approach to the development of mid-Wales.
It would be helpful if the Minister when she replies to the debate could disclose the depopulation assumptions which are available. Could we perhaps have the Welsh Office assumptions for depopulation in mid-Wales between now and the end of the century, so that at least we know the scale of the problem?
Of course we are glad to learn from the chairman of the board, Mr. Glyn Davies, that as a result of the current factory construction programme about 1,000 additional jobs per annum will become available between now and the end of the century. However, we cannot make a reliable judgment about the adequacy of the programme unless we have a complete picture of the magnitude of the problem against which any judgment must be made. If there is a gap between the factory-building programme and the anticipated rate of depopulation, we must concentrate upon closing it. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell the House something about the depopulation figures. I see that she wishes to intervene, and I am most happy for her to do so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that I am terribly worried about him. I believe I am right in saying that he cannot speak twice in the same debate. Should he in fact be speaking at this point? I understood that he was to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. However, I do not want to stymie the noble Lord.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I understood that I was in order in speaking at this stage, but if I am mistaken I apologise.
Baroness White: My Lords, the noble Lord and myself have in fact now changed places.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I apologise for any inconvenience caused. As I was saying, I hope that those figures will become available.
The point is often made that there are other rural districts outside the remit of the Rural Development Board which have similar problems to those within its remit and they should therefore be brought within the board's territory. In passing, I must say that this allows us to conclude that there are people in many areas of Wales who believe that the board has much to offer them. Indeed, it is generally accepted that areas with similar problems in similar circumstances should be even-handedly treated. I would not like to distinguish between one area and another.
However, all that is not to say that areas outside the territorial remit of the DBRW in similar circumstances are not getting helpful, although not identical, treatment from the resources of the Welsh Development Agency. Indeed, during the course of the past few days I heard that the WDA has over the past two or three years embarked upon innovative, integrated schemes of development for some rural areas in the Llyn peninsula in Pentrefoelas.
When discussing the Bill in another place the Secretary of State indicated that the question of whether or not the territory of the DBRW would be extended will again be considered during the course of the coming year. I believe that that statement from the Secretary of State will be widely noticed by those in the local authority world and by others. Therefore, can the Minister tell the House on what grounds of principle the Secretary of State will decide whether or not to extend the territory of the DBRW? Many of us would be interested to learn the criteria.
The two bodies—namely, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency —have had 13 to 14 years in which to settle down. I cannot help thinking that the record of the DBRW and that of the WDA in rural areas—I emphasise that I am confining the role of the WDA to the rural areas—should now be analysed to ascertain what lessons may be learnt. I believe that such an examination would have to take into account the number of jobs which have been created and the number which have been retained—that is, when it is clear that they had been retained as a result of support from the agencies —the duration of the jobs and the financial commitments involved. At the end of the day we are mindful that the WDA and the DBRW are competitors for the available resources. Therefore, we want to see the board and the WDA making the best possible use of them.
Side by side with the need for new jobs and the retention of family farms in mid-Wales, there is an acute shortage of low-cost housing to meet local demand. We hear a great deal about this, but in view of the contents of an open letter to the Secretary of State for Wales published last week in the
616
Welsh-language press, I am not at all sure that the Welsh Office accepts that the housing position in rural Wales is unsatisfactory. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to that open letter and I hope that the Welsh Office will respond to it in due course.
At the time of the 1976 Act there were genuine worries about empowering a statutory board to provide housing to meet local demand because, theoretically, this would call into question the responsibilities of the district councils. However, during the past 11 years the position has changed. By now Tai Cymru is taking the lead in the provision of low-cost housing in many parts of rural Wales. That being the position, we suggest that the role of the DBRW in the provision of housing, which is an extremely limited one, should now be re-opened.
There are at least two other considerations which call for examination. I shall merely refer to them. The first is whether the DBRW should be given greater responsibility in ensuring the viability of the small family farm. Secondly, there is the question of whether it should be given more responsibility for promoting certain aspects of tourism. It seems to me that the Welsh Office Ministers appear to be content that the existing powers of their department of agriculture and those of the Welsh Tourist Board and of Tai Cymru should remain untouched, while possibly accepting that there is a need for greater co-ordination.
However, some of us are not clear where this co-ordination takes places and who will ensure that it does so. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Secretary of State has regular and frequent joint meetings with the chairmen of the DBRW, the Welsh Tourist Board, Tai Cymru and with the head of the Agriculture Department, those being the separate bodies which currently operate in the area. I must leave those matters there. Nevertheless it seems to many of us that the functions and powers of the board need to be reviewed from time to time in the light of experience and changing conditions.
I believe that the Minister mentioned the fact that the DBRW was set up to promote the economic and social well-being of the people of mid-Wales. That twofold role is to be found firmly embedded in Section 1(1) of the Act. Therefore, unlike the Welsh Development Agency, there must be a social dimension to the policies and programmes of the DBRW.
We have taken note of the figures which the Minister gave when she dealt with the implementation of a social dimension of the board's policies. But some of us find it a little disturbing that the implementation of the social dimension appears to have been of less importance in recent years. No doubt—if I am correct in drawing that conclusion—the board was influenced by what it regarded as the dominant feelings and emphasis of the Government; but the need to promote social well-being is clearly stated in Section 1, and many of us hope that the board will now enhance the status of its social development department.
Had the Minister been present in your Lordships' House on 19th April last year when we discussed the

617
problems of the Welsh-speaking rural communities, she would not be surprised that I want to raise the topic of the board's policy towards the Welsh language. Many of the communities of mid-Wales, which are now under grave economic and social stress, have made an outstanding contribution to the Welsh language. So the case for strengthening the economic basis of those communities is even stronger than the economic arguments would indicate. The crisis of those communities, and of the Welsh language, stands out clearly in the minds of our foremost writers and poets. I shall be interested to learn to what extent the board within its own administration, facilitates the use of the Welsh language; and to what extent in its activities throughout mid-Wales where it operates it assists the Welsh language. We should bear in mind the enormous influx of non-Welsh-speaking immigrants in the past 10 or 15 years. Can the DBRW give financial support to the strategy of the Welsh Joint Education Committee to teach the Welsh language to the immigrants settling down in the district within its boundaries? If it has the power to do so, will it do so?
Finally, it would be helpful if we could have particulars of the current expenditure by the Secretary of State under Section 26 of the 1976 Act on, first, the social developments of Wales, and, secondly, the Welsh language. It is not easy to do justice to this important Bill in the 16 minutes at one's disposal, but I have done my best to express gratitude to the board, its chairman and staff and to concentrate upon the major issues as I see them.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Bill. The Development Board for Rural Wales has been a considerable success. The Bill is a small one which adds to its financial resources for the next five years. We should look at what the board has achieved. In the 1950s and early 1960s, depopulation was the greatest problem affecting mid-Wales. The area with which we are concerned is the one most dependent upon agriculture in the whole of the United Kingdom. At present, when the agricultural future of mid-Wales is unsure because of the uncertainties with regard to the protection provided by the common agricultural policy, there is again great anxiety in mid-Wales that we do not slide into another period of depre5sion.
The development board has been of the greatest assistance to mid-Wales since its inception, but it was not conceived in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, outlined. I was a candidate in the 1962 by-election in Montgomeryshire. Before that, I advocated a rural board for mid-Wales. I wrote a booklet about it with Dr. Geraint Jenkins, the present curator of the folk museum at St. Fagans. Our proposal was to set up a development board to operate in a number of towns in mid-Wales along the lines of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States. That was countered by the considerable support there then was for a large new town in mid-Wales. It was what was called a linear town, and it was to be built from Newtown along the valley to Caersws and then to LLanidloes. It would have
618
provided a town of considerable population based on the new town provisions passed by the Labour Government in the late 1940s.
One of those who espoused that idea with great enthusiasm was the late Jim Griffiths, who became the first Secretary of State for Wales. He was very enthusiastic about the plan. I was very much against it for reasons that must be obvious to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It would have created enormous social and cultural problems. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady White, was of the same view, and she brought her influence to bear on the proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, deserves considerable praise for rejecting the plan for the huge new town and for adopting a much more modest plan of developing Newtown. The Newtown Development Corporation came into being. It was the genesis of the evolution that resulted in the setting up of the Development Board for Rural Wales. The Newtown Development Corporation was enlarged to form the Development Board for Rural Wales. It is wrong to suggest that it merely emerged in 1974, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He has throughout referred to a development board for rural Wales. He is a lawyer. One word is missing from his statement. He never referred to a statutory rural hoard. We are talking about a statutory rural board.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, that is a pedantic point, if I may say so. It is one lawyer talking to another. The interesting point about the Development Board for Rural Wales and its predecessors is that all parties accepted the principle behind it: that public money should be invested in mid-Wales to meet an economic, social and cultural problem. The board invests public money with the aim primarily of priming the pump economically to safeguard certain communities culturally and socially so that eventually the whole area will again blossom economically and will be able to sustain itself without the board's aid. It is a combination of public investment and private enterprise, the one encouraging the other.
The activities of the board and its predecessors have had a considerable effect on the economic, social and cultural sphere. I join the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in expressing the hope that the board will do more than it has done in the past to safeguard the Welsh culture, though it has not been inactive in that sphere. The present young, energetic and able chairman, Mr. Glyn Davies, has that matter close to his heart. There is a good deal to be done at present because we are in recession. Rural areas such as mid-Wales tend to be more affected by recession than areas closer to the main markets. There is much to be done economically and socially with regard to the considerable influx of newcomers into the area, to fit them in, make them feel part of the community and harmonise the sometimes clashing interests between one culture and another. Historically, Montgomeryshire and other counties of the border areas are extremely good at doing this, with one culture respecting the other.

619
It is an interesting reflection: I know of areas in Montgomeryshire which ceased to be Welsh-speaking decades ago. They still run eisteddfods and hold Welsh competitions at them, but the eisteddfods are conducted entirely in English. One culture merges with another. In my experience, there has also historically been considerable respect by one culture for another in my area.
If I were to ask myself what could best be done to assist the Development Board for Rural Wales to encourage the economy to flourish in the immediate future, it would be to make sure that the board is allowed to support industries ancillary to agriculture as well as agriculture itself. This is the key to the future. Obviously, agriculture will still be the economic backbone of the area. The marketing of agricultural products will be all important.
Wales, particularly mid-Wales, is an enormous sheep producer; there are probably more sheep per head of population than anywhere else in the UK. The sheep are of high quality and they have to be marketed, sold to the continent and elsewhere. There is the purchase of goods for use in agriculture, and the creation of other ancillary industries. The Development Board for Rural Wales knows full well from its own experience how the fact of building factories and bringing in industries from outside has often resulted in considerable spending power being added to rural homes—farmers' and farmworkers' homes. The wives, daughters and sons of those homes are employed in other industries but so help the home economy. I hope that at some stage in the near future there will be a general review of the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales. It has been lucky in its chairmen who have all been dedicated to the area. It has general support. There have been shortcomings at times, but they are far outweighed by the benefits it has brought to the area.
It would be helpful to examine the board's remit to see whether it can be brought up to date in the light of present economic, cultural and social conditions. In the meantime, I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington; her pronunciation of Welsh names is improving.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, the small number of Members of your Lordships' House who were also present on 15th November will remember that we debated the report on The Future of Rural Society of the committee on the European Communities under the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I then touched upon the problems and opportunities of the Development Board for Rural Wales. I owe an apology to the Minister because I misread my notes and referred to designation 5(b) in the report of the European Community on funding for rural areas. I should have made a much more general reference to the ERDF funds which have been applicable for a number of years. The Minister kindly sent me a note following the debate and I apologise for causing her and her department a little extra work in correcting what I said on the designation.
620
I emphasise that I have a considerable interest in the well-being of mid-Wales. As a small child my first Welsh home was briefly at Llandinam; my first remembered holidays were spent at Sam and then Gregynog. I have close personal and family connections with Ceredigion and for the past 20 years I have been a ratepayer, and am now a poll tax payer, first in Montgomeryshire and now in Brecon. It is therefore understandable that I have a close interest in this subject.
I had that interest when many years ago I was Minister of State at the Welsh Office. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was quite correct in saying that the first or charter Secretary of State for Wales, the late Mr. Jim Griffiths, wanted a large new town in mid-Wales. However, his successor, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, thought—and I concurred, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hooson—that a more modest new town would be less of a social and cultural shock to the Welsh system of society. Hence, we have a new town in Telford on one side of the border and a more modest one in Newtown in Montgomeryshire.
Some extra money is to be made available under the Bill for the Development Board for Rural Wales, although no one has yet explained whether or not the provision will be adequate. This board came to life under the Labour Administration of the late 1970s. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies commented, it owed a good deal to the local authorities in the area which it now administers. They had decided that some co-operative and co-ordinated effort was desirable. They set up a fairly informal organisation of their own—the predecessor to the DBRW.
It is only right to mention that considerable credit was due to Mr. Peter Garbett Edwards of Llandinam, who did a great deal to support the earlier organisation. He later became a senior officer of the DBRW.
I do not wish to repeat what I said about mid-Wales on 15th November or to add to our collective reminiscences. I listened with close attention to the Minister's remarks and I emphasise that we on this side of the House strongly support the social as well as the entrepreneurial work of the DBRW. We wish the board, its chairman and the newly appointed chief executive all success and trust that they can rely on continuing government support at an adequate level. The word "adequate" is tricky because views differ as to what is and what is not adequate. It is clear that without considerable public assistance one will not obtain the advance in private enterprise that is one of the aims of the board.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, would perhaps not wish me to do more than refer briefly, as I must, to the difficulties that arose on the flagship of mid-Wales: the Laura Ashley company. He himself had a creditable relationship with it. Unfortunately, as we all know, the full expectations of continuing success for that company have not been fulfilled. We are thankful that a good deal has been rescued, but one cannot avoid recognising that it has been a severe shock to local and national susceptibilities that a company with such a reputation found itself in difficulties. We can only

621
hope that under the present administration it will still be able, to fulfil a function in mid-Wales which, so far at any rate, no other enterprise has been in a position to emulate.
We hope very much that the efforts of the Development Board for Rural Wales, in conjunction with the other organisations of which the tourist board is one of the most important, will be sustained. I wish to support strongly the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who also spoke on 15th November. He remarked that unless the agricultural problems are brought under adequate control, it will be very difficult especially in some of our upland areas, to maintain a population which can sustain a pattern of society that one would wish to see.
Our farming community is very uncertain about its fate over the next few years. I am all for diversification and for providing alternative forms of remunerative occupation, but there is still great uncertainty in the farming community. The noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate is closely concerned with the agricultural industry. It would be helpful if she could enlighten us with her thoughts on the relationship, with which a great deal of the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales must be connected. The noble Baroness may not be able to tell us what will happen in the GATT negotiations or about the 30 per cent. cut in subsidy, but I am sure she recognises that, however active the DBRW is and however enthusiastic we may be about it, if there is no solution to the agricultural problems which face a great part of rural Wales, it will be difficult to achieve the success that we would all wish to see in the near future
6.12 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, whose experience in these matters goes back far further than mine. I must apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. However, no one informed this side of the House of an alteration in the order of speakers. Therefore, when I interrupted the noble Lord I hoped I was being helpful. It was done in the friendliest spirit. At the same time I wish to thank the noble Lord for his great courtesy in giving me an indication of the points he wished to raise. I congratulate all three speakers on their long association with the organisation we are discussing. I join in their congratulations to the chairman, the board and the staff who work for that excellent organisation.
I pass directly to answering the various points that have been made. I hope that they will be regarded as satisfactory. If not, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will no doubt tell me. The mid-Wales population increase between 1987 and 1996 is expected to be 4.5 per cent. compared with an increase of 3 per cent. overall in Wales. In 1971 the population was 185,000; in 1988 it was 213,000. That is an increase of 15.2 per cent. By 1996 the figure is expected to rise to 219,000. That is as far as I can go at the moment. Extending the DBRW's territory—
Baroness White: My Lords, I entirely understand that the noble Baroness may not have the figures with which to answer my question now. However, without some age breakdown of the total number, it is difficult to judge what the real social effect of the small increase in total population will be. However, if it is shown that all the young people leave and all the retired people buy their cheaper houses on our side of the border, that reveals a very different pattern.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall see what we can do in the next few minutes. I shall continue to reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on extending the territory of the Development Board for Rural Wales. While the Secretary of State for Wales, by virtue of Section 1(2) of the Act, has powers to extend the board's boundaries, it has not hitherto been considered prudent to do so. In fact, the issue was addressed by the financial management review in 1986 which concluded that any extension to the board's territory would merely result in the dilution of its efficiency and resources.
In reply to the noble Lord's next question, I should say that the Welsh Office monitors on a continuous basis the work of the DBRW and the Welsh Development Agency to ensure that they are achieving their objectives in rural areas.
The housing situation is the responsibility of Tai Cymru. The Welsh Office has been aware for some time of the problems faced by people in rural Wales in securing affordable homes and a number of measures are being undertaken. Housing for Wales has directed around £25 million—no less than a quarter of its resources—to be spent by housing associations in rural areas this financial year. In recent years we have made available additional allocations/credit approvals totalling £2·8 million to those rural district councils with severe second home problems to enable them to purchase dwellings for rent or resale or to purchase land for housing development. To help mitigate the effects of immigration and second homes, public sector landlords in national parks and certain designated rural areas may impose conditions on the resale of dwellings sold under the right to buy.
Within the next few months we will be issuing planning advice on land for low cost housing in rural areas following consultation last year. Last year Housing for Wales launched a rural housing initiative to assist local people, especially young people, to find suitable homes which they can afford in their own communities. The initiative is being run on a pilot basis in 31 villages across rural Wales, the majority of homes being provided on shared ownership terms with a pre-emption right to return the home eventually to the relevant housing association. More significantly, earlier this month Housing for Wales published the results of two vital research projects on the nature and extent of the need for housing in rural Wales. One of the studies which assessed the demand for social housing in rural Wales is of a technical nature and will require careful study before we can say what decisions may need to be made about the direction of future resources. The second report on the importance of

623
affordable housing for young people in determining their decision to remain in their home communities goes further than housing issues. Housing for Wales intends to call a working conference early in the new year to discuss the findings of both studies. It will draw on the expertise of those organisations with an interest in the quality of rural life.
Tourism is the responsibility of the Wales Tourist Board. Some 20 per cent. of the budget of the DBRW is tourism-related. Indeed there are frequent meetings to co-ordinate and collaborate tourism strategy with the Wales Tourist Board, the Mid-Wales Tourism Council and local authorities. A new tourism strategy has just been agreed by the development board and a key element is the continued promotion of country hotels in the board's area. The promotion of a very successful Welsh gold collection of attractive country house hotels will be extended to other countries, including the USA. Both the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned the social side of the board's activities. The social dimension features in the board's policies and plans. It must be remembered that the DBRW has not only an economic but also a social remit.
The questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White, in connection with agriculture go rather wider than the Bill. However, as I said in reply to the debate on 15th November to which the noble Baroness referred, I am well aware of the uncertainty facing the agriculture industry. As she will imagine, I probably know more about that than I do about Wales.
The analysis of age structure for which the noble Baroness asked is not available. I shall write to her on the subject. The Secretary of State has regular meetings with the chairmen of all the non-departmental public bodies in Wales and is in daily contact with senior officers in his department.
With regard to the Welsh language, the DBRW has the necessary resources to conduct its business through the medium of the Welsh language where that is required. The development board has helped the development of the Welsh language and culture. We have supported a large number of Welsh language projects for learners including helping the Welsh Learners Council develop its community programme, S4C's acen project and the establishment of a Welsh language centre by Powys county council. Also, we have given substantial financial support to community, regional and national eisteddfods. By providing jobs and enhancing local facilities the development board aims to retain a greater number of Welsh youngsters in mid-Wales, thereby helping to ensure the continued viability of many Welsh-speaking communities.
Regarding the Secretary of State's expenditure under Section 26 of the Act I am afraid that the information is not readily available. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
I should say a little more about agriculture, which plays an important role. While the remit of the board does not cover that activity, the board seeks to build
624
other businesses to help ensure alternative employment for those who might previously have formed the agricultural workforce. I know that the board is intensifying and focusing its efforts to find ways of adding value to existing agricultural production and to funding alternative work. That is particularly important since one in four jobs on the western side of the board's area is agriculture related. There is an armoury of loan and grant schemes for private enterprise, varying from the mid-Wales development grant to the recently re-introduced development of rural initiative, venture and enterprise scheme as well as the rural building conversion grant schemes. All help to stimulate private sector involvement in job creation.
During 1989 and 1990 the board has been determined to acquire new land for the construction of factory and village workshops. In total some 30 acres have been acquired for individual development in the last financial year and £1.2 million has been set aside for the acquisition of more sites. There are many more activities in which the board is peripherally involved from an agricultural point of view, and the figure relating to rural activities is high.
The new financial limit which the Bill sets out will provide the Development Board for Rural Wales with the headroom it needs to pursue its tasks in the years ahead. I wish your Lordships nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda and express the hope that the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (No. 2) Order 1990
6.24 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 19th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in accordance with Section 67(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, may from time to time revise any codes of practice which are issued under that Act.
The existing first four codes of practice regulate in detail the exercise by the police of their powers of stop and search; the search of premises and the seizure of property; the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects; and the identification of persons by the police. They came into force on 1st January 1986. They were then a major innovation. No one had previously tried to draw up such comprehensive codes and they have proved a resounding success. I think that it is fair to say that the police now welcome them as giving them firm and clear parameters within which to operate.
When Parliament first introduced the codes, it promised that there should be a review after they had been in practice for sufficient time to see where improvements are needed. The review process has

625
been a complex one and has involved a double round of consultation with professionals and the public. The review has been in progress for nearly three years and we have received comments and proposals from a very wide range of groups and organisations, including those representing the police, the legal profession, civil liberties interests, and community groups. We have paid close attention to what they have said and we have taken their views into account wherever possible when preparing the final draft which is now before your Lordships.
We have tried, as far as possible, to reconcile the different views which inevitably have been expressed. We have also tried to ensure that the codes of practice represent a reasonable balance which gives the police the powers which they need to deal with crime, but which also provides workable and effective safeguards for the citizen who comes into contact with the police.
I should like to say something about each code in turn in order to highlight the main changes which are being proposed.
Regarding Code A, which deals with police powers to stop and search in the streets, the review showed that there was considerable dissatisfaction with the guidance on the "reasonable suspicion" which is needed before the power to stop and search may be exercised. We have attempted to shorten and to simplify the guidance so as to make it easier to understand and to apply, while retaining the safeguards against stopping people on the basis of racial and stereotyped images.
As regards Code B, covering the searching of premises and the seizure of evidence, the responses which we received suggest that it has been operating well. However, there is a general recognition within the police service that everything possible should be done to advise an occupier, whose premises are being searched, of his rights.
With that in mind, the revised code contains one important new provision, at paragraph 5.7, requiring the police to give the occupier of the premises to be searched a notice of powers and rights. It will explain whether the search is carried out under a warrant or in the exercise of statutory powers, and it will set out the rights of the occupier in relation to the search. The notice does not replace the search warrant where one is required.
Code C, covering the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers, has received easily the greatest amount of attention during the review. Major changes are proposed relating to access to legal advice and to the recording and verification of what is said in interviews and elsewhere.
Research which was carried out by the Home Office in 1987 found that, despite the virtually unrestricted access to legal advice under the Act, only around 20 per cent. of suspects requested legal advice. The reasons for that low uptake have been the subject of further research, which was published at the end of last year. Well over 5,000 cases were considered. The findings made it clear that most officers try to ensure that suspects get legal advice when they want it.
626
However, it also appeared that other officers did not always act promptly in response to requests for legal advice, and that some of them might even have discouraged suspects from making such requests.
The study makes the point that advice tends to be sought in more serious cases. However, suspects in minor cases may also need help especially those who have been in little or no trouble before; who have no experience of police stations or investigative techniques; who are completely ignorant of their rights; and juveniles who may be most easily put off because of their anxiety to get out of custody as quickly as possible.
We were very concerned about those difficulties with access to legal advice, and all parties to our discussions—most notably the police themselves—have shown a very constructive approach to seeking ways to improve the position.
The draft revised Code C, which is before your Lordships, contains the following important changes. The emphasis is that the custody officer should inform a detained person clearly of his basic rights and should advise him that they are continuing rights which may be exercised at any time while he remains in custody. The code requires the custody officer to state that the right is to free legal advice. It places greater emphasis on the need to provide information in translation to non-English speakers. It requires posters advertising the right to free legal advice to be displayed in all charging areas. It requires that suspects should be reminded of their right to legal advice before any and every interview, any detention review, any identity parade or the provision of any intimate sample. It specifically states that no attempt should be made to dissuade a suspect from obtaining legal advice. Very importantly, it formally restricts the circumstances in which interviewing can take place away from the police station.
There are also significant changes which strengthen the existing provisions covering the recording and verification of interviews and other comments which may be made by suspects.
Under the revised code, in circumstances in which the interview is not tape recorded, the suspect will normally have an opportunity to read the record and sign it as correct, or to indicate the respects in which he considers it to be inaccurate. Also—and very importantly—a similar system will apply to comments which may be made outside an interview but which may be relevant to an offence. Those improved provisions for proper recording and verification should raise the quality of evidence and make it more comprehensive. Again, it is an insurance for both the suspect and the police officers.
There are other significant changes to Code C which are proposed in addition to the major amendments to which I already referred. At paragraph 3.2 we have introduced a requirement for detainees to be provided with a notice of entitlement. That is intended to detail the facilities which should be available to a detained person and which are over and above the statutory rights to which he is entitled and

627
which are set out in the main notice to detained persons. The notice of entitlement will be easy to read and cover such things as visits, contacts with outside parties, standards of physical comfort, adequate food and drink, access to toilets and washing facilities, clothing, medical attention and exercise.
We have also sought in Code C to improve the provisions relating to the disadvantaged—those who are mentally disordered, have hearing or speech impairments or who are visually handicapped.
In Code D we have reorganised the material into a more logical order but the major change has been to introduce a whole new block of material which makes provision for identifying suspects from a video film as opposed to the more traditional method of an identification parade. That is another means by which nervous witnesses can be spared the ordeal of coming face to face with the suspects.
If approved, the revised codes will come into force on 1st April 1991. Officers will receive training in advance of that date on the basis of a programme which is being devised centrally to cover the proposed changes. Further information and designs for the new forms which will be required will be included in a Home Office circular to the police which will be issued in the new year.
The implementation and increasing approval of the codes of practice have been one of the most encouraging developments within the criminal justice system in recent years. There has been no need for wholesale amendment. Certain key areas have had to be strengthened or tightened but the success of the body of the codes is a considerable tribute to all those who participated in the original drafting.
Properly applied, and allowing for the amendments which are being proposed, the codes will continue to make a substantial contribution to effective policing by consent, which is such a vital element in the successful relationship between the police and the public whom they serve. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 19th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps at the outset I may say that I echo the words of the noble Earl at the end of his speech. These amendments are important and the codes of conduct under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act are crucial in terms of the relationship between the police and the general public. We welcome the improvements to the codes of conduct so far as they go.
I should like to put one or two detailed questions to the Minister, mainly in respect of Code C. I also want to raise with him two points on interpreters: one point in relation to deaf people and the other in relation to people who do not speak English.
First, when one looks at the amendments and the earlier draft codes, some of the differences between the two do not seem to improve the position of the suspect. On the contrary, they make his position
628
somewhat more difficult. To take one difference that has certainly struck me, under the earlier draft code the superintendent's written authorisation was required before interviews could proceed with two groups of suspects: those who had indicated that they did not want legal advice, and those whose chosen solicitor was unable or unwilling to attend and who did not want or could not obtain the services of a duty solicitor. Under the old code, such suspects also had to confirm in writing or on tape that they agreed to be interviewed without taking legal advice.
Now no authorisation is needed for interviews with those who declined legal advice in the first place. Neither would it be necessary to have their agreement to be interviewed without seeing a solicitor. Authorisation is needed for interviews with suspects who are unable to reach their solicitors; and for those who change their mind about taking legal advice the suspect's agreement must also be obtained. But it will no longer be necessary to obtain authority from the superintendent. Inspectors can now give the go-ahead which only needs to be given orally.
I must tell the Minister that those changes worry me on several grounds. First, it is known that some suspects choose not to consult a solicitor because they consider that it is neither useful nor important to do so. The need for a superintendent's authority helped to emphasise the seriousness of being interviewed without legal advice, as did the requirement that the suspect's agreement to the interview be recorded. It also gave suspects another chance to consider their decision not to obtain legal advice.
Allowing inspectors rather than solicitors to authorise interviews where there has been no legal advice is somewhat worrying. I understand that the Home Office justifies the change on the grounds that an officer at inspector level is better placed than a superintendent to satisfy himself both of a suspect's wishes and whether the custody officer has followed those wishes in trying to obtain a solicitor when asked for one. The Minister may well know that the Law Society at least is not convinced by those arguments. Mr. Stephen Ridley of the Law Society is quoted as saying:
"The detached, reasoned judgment of a senior officer is needed. It is an important decision and should not be taken lightly. Most stations have access to a superintendent".
Why should the requirement not remain at superintendent rather than inspector level?
There are some other potentially significant changes in the new codes. I do not understand one of them at all. Under the new codes suspects who undergo intimate searches, as the noble Earl said, will not be reminded of their right to free legal advice. In virtually all other circumstances, including the taking of intimate samples, the reminder is to be given. For the life of me I do not understand the logical distinction between reminding somebody of his right to free legal advice when taking an intimate sample from him and not doing so when conducting an intimate search. I should like to know its justification.
Secondly, the right to notify other people in writing or by telephone of an arrest can now be delayed for a

629
much larger number of suspects than is the case under the old codes. Under the present codes that key right can be delayed only by a superintendent and only for those suspected of terrorist or serious arrestable offences. The revised codes provide that on an inspector's authority it can also be delayed for those detained for arrestable offences. I again do not see the justification for the change. I welcome the Minister's views on it.
Thirdly—it is a matter of detail but an important one—in the earlier drafts those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 could not be questioned about an alleged offence or asked to make a statement. That directive seems to have been dropped despite the fact that the rights of mentally ill people have perhaps been strengthened by some of the other provisions in the code. These are points of detail. Nevertheless, they are important and significant. I welcome the Minister's views on them.
Perhaps I may raise two other matters regarding interpretation. First, how will a deaf person be dealt with? Secondly, how will a person who does not speak the English language be dealt with?
As I am sure the Minister knows, the British Deaf Association is one of the organisations which participated in the consultative processes beginning in 1982 which led to the Act and the codes of practice. It is anxious about three major matters. First, is a police officer the person who should be called upon to act as an interpreter when a police officer is interviewing a suspect who happens to be deaf? I believe that at the moment he would not be entitled to do so. Under the new codes, as I understand it, he would.
The British Deaf Association takes the view that the codes rightly imply an expectation of objectivity and separation of roles. It is therefore an unacceptable contradiction not to apply the same expectation to the police in relation to the role of interpreter as the codes apply to the police in precluding them from acting as the appropriate adult.
Secondly, who calls an interpreter in relation to a deaf person? At the moment an interpreter for a deaf person would be called by a custody officer. In deciding not to call an interpreter that officer might innocently but erroneously assume that an interpreter was not needed. I believe that there should be provision for an interpreter to be provided for a deaf suspect in circumstances in which there is a reasonable suspicion that an individual is deaf and may not be able to understand what is going on.
Thirdly, when should someone who is deaf waive the right to an interpreter? Again, the codes are silent on that. It is a danger—I do not for a moment say that many people will fall into that category—that I hope the Government will take into account.
The other point on interpretation arises in detail on Guidance Note 3D, which is referred to in paragraph 13.1 of Code C. It relates to the provision of an interpreter for someone who does not speak English. The guidance note states that the local community relations council may be able to provide information about interpreters with the necessary skills and
630
experience in cases where the person concerned does not understand English. That seems to me to be a nonsense. The community relations council is not qualified to provide the interpreter. I remind the Government of what the Court of Appeal said recently in the case of Kavizinski. It emphasised, as perhaps has been rarely emphasised with such force and clarity, the necessity for a person who finds himself or herself involved in the criminal justice system to understand what is going on.
I am sure that the Government know that in Cambridge, under the auspices of the Institute of Linguists and supported by the Nuffield Foundation, a model has been developed to meet the need when public services, in particular the police, have to deal with someone who does not speak English adequately. The Cambridgeshire constabulary has worked closely with the Institute of Linguists over the years in that regard. I do not propose to go into the matter in detail. I merely point out to the Government that those who are more expert than I am in this field—and I suspect more expert than most—take the view that the practice direction—Guidance Note 3D—is inadequate, does not make sense and could land police forces in a great deal of trouble if they operated in the way suggested.
The difficulty about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the codes of conduct is the relationship between breaches of a code and the admissibility of evidence. The Government know that the decision on admissibility under Section 78 of the Act is very much left to the discretion of the trial judge. Therefore in some cases—it has happened very frequently to those of us who practise in criminal courts—one may have a series of breaches of the code and one may then have an argument that, despite the breaches of the code, the evidence obtained by interview which should not have taken place in that way, or an identification which was not in accordance with the code, should be admissible in evidence.
I do not say that every breach of a code should result in the inadmissibility of the evidence which was obtained as a result. However, one now has the stage when prosecuting counsel quite often will concede the breach and rely on the judge's discretion in order to get the evidence in. I do not suggest that the Government amend Section 78 of the PACE Act. However, the House might welcome some indication from the Government as to whether or not they consider that the balance between breaches of the code and the admissibility of the evidence is being preserved in the way that the PACE Act intended.
Are the Government satisfied that police officers and police authorities—I pick my words very carefully indeed - are as righteous in their application of the codes of conduct under the PACE Act as they would be if they knew that the retribution of a decision of inadmissibility of evidence obtained under the breach of code would result in more evidence being excluded than was included? In other words, are the Government satisfied that Section 78 of the PACE Act in its relationship to breaches of the code is working properly? I refer to the old or the new codes.

631
Apart from those points, we on this side of the House welcome the attempts by the Government with the new codes of practice to deal with some of the preoccupations that were being expressed in a quite lively way in some instances in relation to the old codes.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it gives me pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for the first time since he assumed responsibilities for the Home Office for the Opposition. I say that for two reasons. First, he has a substantial reputation at the criminal Bar. Secondly, I can testify to his qualities as an advocate since on one occasion I had the good fortune to be represented by him in court over a slight problem in relation to the Road Traffic Act. I am glad to say that we both emerged from the court with our reputations unimpaired.
I wish to repeat the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard; namely, that I believe the order is wholly desirable. It certainly carries our support. However, bearing in mind the debates that we have had, not only at the time of the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but subsequent to it, such an order also indicates the desirability of having serious inquiry before proceeding to legislation.
One can compare the Police and Criminal Evidence Act with other legislation over the past few years. That Act has worked rather well. It was said by some at the time—rather foolishly, in my view—that the Act should be repealed. That proposition has now been dropped. By and large it is accepted by all that a major improvement has been carried through as a result of the passage of this legislation.
The legislation has worked because it was preceded by a widely-based Royal Commission consisting of lawyers, serving and retired police officers and people from outside the criminal justice system. The legislation was determined as a result of careful inquiry. It was vigorously debated in Parliament and is now on the statute book. It has by and large received substantial public acceptance. One can compare it with other legislation in respect of which no such inquiry took place and as a consequence serious damage was caused.
The questions that I wish to raise are different from those put by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. First, I wish to deal with the issue of tape recordings made at police stations. In my view they have been introduced far too slowly. Can the Minister indicate whether the process has been completed? Are there now tape recording facilities in all police stations? If not, when will there be tape recording facilities in every police station in England and Wales? It is deplorable that it has taken so long to introduce this facility and I would like the Minister's reassurance that the process has, or will soon, come to a conclusion.
I now turn to the issue of video recordings. The Minister may be aware that at present two experiments are taking place; one in the West
632
Midlands and the other, carried out by the Metropolitan Police, at Edmonton. I would like to know the Government's attitude. Do the Government now consider it desirable to extend such provision to police stations in other parts of the country? It is an important question. When one talks to American criminal lawyers and to the heads of American police forces one notes the extent to which the American criminal justice system now relies on video recordings. It is made clear by lawyers who generally represent criminal defendants and those involved in prosecution policy that the interests of the accused and the prosecution are served by this system. What is the position of the Home Office? Is it prepared to contemplate a wider introduction of the scheme?
The issue of the mentally ill is raised in Annexe E. The noble Earl will recall that we have debated the subject on a number of occasions. I am sure that he is aware that many more mentally ill people are coming into police custody. The reason is the failure of the Government's mental health programme. We are all aware that thousands of people now leave mental hospitals without adequate resources having been made available in the community to look after them. As a result police officers in any major city will speak of the substantial number of people who come into their custody and who have a background of mental illness.
That being so I wish to ask the Minister two particular questions. The first issue is dealt with in the order. There it is made clear that if a person in custody appears to be suffering from mental disorder or mental handicap there is an obligation on the police to try to obtain the attendance of a relative or a guardian. Alternatively, if the police cannot find a relative—and often that is impossible—someone with experience of dealing with mentally disordered people can be asked to go to the police station to assist. Indeed, that is a requirement. However, a third category is also dealt with in the order, and it is about that that I would like to question the noble Earl. The order states that a "responsible adult" can be asked to go to the police station to assist the person who has been taken into custody. The obligations on that responsible adult are substantial. Paragraph 9 of the code provides that where the appropriate adult is present at an interview he should be informed that he is not expected to act simply as an observer; and that the purposes of his presence are, first, to advise the person being interviewed and to observe whether or not the interview is being conducted properly and fairly, and, secondly, to facilitate communication with the person being interviewed.
Is any guidance being given to the police on what constitutes a responsible adult? Given the fact that substantial obligations are being put upon that responsible adult, has there been any discussion between the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers as to the type of person who constitutes a responsible adult? The issues raised can be highly sensitive. I should be grateful for any indication that the noble Earl can give.

633
The second matter that I wish to raise concerns the question of what happens when the mentally ill person is a Home Office remand prisoner. During the past year or two the numbers have fluctuated between the high hundreds and up to 2,000. The Minister will recall from our previous debates on the subject that a number of mentally ill people have been held in police stations many hundreds of miles away from where they were arrested. What is the obligation on the custody sergeant in a police station? Does he have any obligations? If he believes that the person concerned may be disturbed, is he required to obtain someone with experience in dealing with the mentally ill? Does he have an obligation to call a doctor to the police station? The issue may lie outside the order; nevertheless, it would be helpful if the noble Earl could outline the obligations on the officer in charge of the police station when he believes that the person brought into his custody has substantial mental health problems.
Subject to the questions that I have asked, we on these Benches are content with the order.
7 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, one of the consequences of the production in 1985 of the four codes of practice that we are now discussing was the phasing out of the judges' rules. That was a set of legal principles which for some 73 years covered the police interrogation of persons suspected of crime and the taking of statements from them. It is interesting to note that they appear to have been initiated originally by the police. With the rules' attendant administrative directions they ran to some five and a half pages and individual police officers were expected to know them almost by heart.
Therefore, your Lordships may not find it surprising to note that when the new codes of practice appeared, admittedly covering a wider field, the police viewed their 92 pages of mixed statutory provisions, practice directions and ethical advice with some degree of caution and a large measure of apprehension. In particular they were worried about the resource implications involved in mounting a programme to train some 120,000 individual police officers in the new procedures, a requirement which must now be repeated, as the noble Earl rightly indicated.
They were anxious about the manpower implications of creating posts of custody officer, generally of the rank of sergeant, at the majority of police stations. They were anxious about the implications of the new proposals to have interviews tape recorded and that the slightest breach of those detailed and often complicated rules might lead to an officer being liable to disciplinary proceedings and possible dismissal from the force.
I believe that the police responded very well to those challenges. Indeed, it may be thought that the comparatively few changes of any real substance made in the revised codes are some measure of that. Certainly my information is that the police have come
634
to terms with the new situation and that the expected problems have now been largely, if not entirely, resolved.
I believe that there has been real progress in the past five years. The questioning of suspects is now conducted in ways which are quite different from those which existed before the introduction of the codes. Independent research studies clearly show that that is so.
It is a great pity that the public's perception of the situation is so clouded by the reports of, for example, the Guildford case of some 16 years ago. I do not believe that the problems which have arisen in that case could be repeated today. The future introduction of video interviewing as an extension of tape recording, which is now being introduced, will make that even more impossible.
As to the changes which the Minister outlined to us, I believe that the new and extended provisions should be generally acceptable not only to the police but also to all other parties involved. The amendments made in respect of the mentally disordered, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, are extremely important. I share his view that we shall find many more of those unfortunate people in police stations in future if only as a result of their being taken there as a place of safety under the provisions of the Mental Health Act.
Welcome, too, are the amendments relating to entitlement to legal advice. Apart from strengthening the right of suspects to such assistance, the changes are also helpful to the police by defining more clearly their relationship with defence solicitors and the latter's proper role.
The new provisions—namely, that arrested persons may only be interviewed in the controlled situation of a police station and which outlaw what have been come to be known as car seat confessions—may seem unduly restrictive to some. But that is balanced by the equally new provision that unsolicited comments made elsewhere may rightly be recorded and admitted in evidence.
That is not to say that there are not still some areas of difficulty; for example, the requirement that senior officers must give written consent to certain actions, such as the searching of premises occupied or controlled by a person arrested for an arrestable offence. In my view, that pays insufficient regard to the immediate availability of such officers, particularly in some more rural areas of the country.
It may be felt also that the provision that a person's consent to a search of premises may be withdrawn before it is concluded—probably just before the stolen goods are discovered—may well cause problems.
In his speech the noble Earl drew attention to the administrative burdens which the codes have imposed particularly on custody officers. It should be clearly recognised that in busy stations difficulty is already experienced in keeping up to date the detailed records currently required in respect of the handling and interviewing of prisoners. I am afraid that the amendments will only add to those difficulties.

635
The amendments also do nothing to resolve the doubts which the police have as to the interview techniques which officers may use without being accused later of being unfair or oppressive. While the code clearly indicates that a person's declaration that he is unwilling to reply to questions does not affect an officer's right to continue to ask them, there is some evidence that what has been described as "persuasive questioning" as opposed to what may be called "information seeking" is felt to be out of order. Consequently, interrogators are becoming unskilled and new recruits to the CID are not learning those techniques which, rightly or wrongly, are thought to be suspect. I hope that the Minister may be able to help us later on that point.
I have never believed that acceptable standards of conduct, such as fairness to suspects, can be achieved simply by demanding them and providing for penalties when they are not realised, whether that be through a disciplinary code or refusal to admit evidence. Proper ethical standards of policing cannot be achieved and recognised as such unless they are clearly part of every officer's way of life. I believe that the police service also recognises that, as is evidenced by the statement of common purpose and values recently produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers and to which I know the other police representative bodies also subscribe.
In furtherance of that, with the help of academic advisers, members of the legal profession and others, as your Lordships may have seen in the press today, the police are actively seeking to improve and standardise the training given to police officers in the interviewing of suspects and others and to build into that the development of proper moral values. That will be successful only if a similar approach permeates all other police training. Corporate philosophies such as ACPO's statement of common purpose are of little use unless translated into individual practice which is not easy to achieve. However, the will to do that is there, and it is in the interests of the police, quite as much in the interests of justice and the public, that they should succeed in doing so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken and for the welcome which they have given to these codes. I was particularly grateful for the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. He brings to these debates the experience and wisdom of those who have been involved and are involved in the police service. His concluding remarks were right. He said that justice cannot be achieved for suspects merely by altering the wording or demanding that they should have justice. It must be part of a way of life. However, we must try to provide the codes so that when inculcated into the life of a police officer, he will be able to conduct himself correctly and in such a way that is fair and right for the suspect. I am the first to recognise that that is not an easy job, and that that requires training. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that will be time consuming. It is time consuming. People then ask why there are not more policemen on the streets.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I did not say that at all. I welcome training, and indeed I believe it to be essential.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord said that police officers had been trained on the first set of codes, and would now have to be retrained. If I am wrong, then I apologise. Police officers will have to be retrained, and that takes up rather a lot of time. I beg the noble Lord's pardon; it was the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who said it. I apologise to the noble Lord. I should not have put such fearful thoughts into the mind of the noble Lord, but had he heard the noble Lord, Lord Knights, first, he would have quite agreed with him. It is true to say that 120,000 officers had to be trained and that they may have to be retrained. That is important if justice is to be correctly applied to suspects.
Your Lordships asked a number of questions. I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in saying how delighted we on this side of the House are to see the noble Lord, Lord Richard, taking on responsibility for Home Office matters. I say that we are delighted in a personal capacity. We are delighted because he has the advantage of being trained in the law. Therefore, he will start off with a singular advantage over me, which I find a disturbing thought. Other than that fact, I welcome him enormously.
The noble Lord was concerned about the authority of superintendents. Their responsibility is now that of inspectors. Superintendents are not available at police stations at all times and inspectors are usually in operational control of police stations. They are the best people to give authority quickly. It would not be practical for a superintendent's authority to be required in every case. One must remember that an inspector is a senior police officer who is in day-to-day charge of a police station. If we can trust him to run a station properly I hope that we can trust him correctly to exercise discretion over such matters.
The noble Lord was concerned that people were not notified of their legal rights in relation to intimate searches but that they were when samples were taken. I agree that superficially that is a curious position, but there are often urgent and immediate requirements for intimate searches. It is not always possible to obtain legal advice at that stage. There is usually a delay before intimate samples are taken and therefore there is an opportunity to remind people about obtaining legal advice.
The noble Lord referred to police officers being interpreters for the deaf. I do not think that police officers could not be objective interpreters. Some deaf people can communicate quite well in writing and can lip read. It might unnecessarily extend their time in custody if an interpreter was always required to be present. Clearly, there will be occasions when interpreters will be required but it is not unreasonable to think that police officers could be impartial interpreters.
Concern was expressed also about the delay in notification for arrestable offences as well as for

637
offences of terrorism. Some offences short of terrorism—for example, armed robbery—are very serious indeed. They may involve many people and there is a possibility of disposal of evidence. There is no requirement to consult community relations councils about interpreters. It is a matter for the police. In some circumstances they may find that community relations councils are very useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was concerned about the balance of inadmissibility of evidence and the breach of codes. We have found that generally courts have proved quite tough over that matter. Evidence is excluded when to allow it would be unfair. The court must look at the whole case. The Government are satisfied with Section 78 of PACE. Police officers are subject to disciplinary procedures for breaches of codes and therefore there is a double weapon against them.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned about tape recording. That system will be fully operational by the end of 1991. Approximately half the forces in England and Wales have applied the system generally and the others are conducting some kind of recording. Implementation continues to go ahead quickly.
The noble Lord referred to video recordings and asked what progress was being made in that regard. As he knows, video recording experiments are being conducted. We hope that they will demonstrate whether or not they are sufficiently valuable for wider introduction. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, stated that such recordings have been found to be very valuable in the USA. I am sure that they have. We are trying to find out whether in the circumstances that we have spoken of they will be equally valuable here and how best they could be applied, if they are applied. In some ways the experiments are a cost-benefit exercise. The noble Lord asked when they would be used all over the country. I cannot answer that. It is a difficult issue and we shall not commit ourselves until we know that there will be a return on the additional money. It would mean more skilled interviewing, more guilty pleas, more training, and so forth. We will see how the experiments work out.
The noble Lord was concerned about mentally ill suspects. I agree that large numbers of mentally ill people end up in police custody and it is a matter of considerable concern to everybody that that should be the case. We do not offer guidance to the police as to what is a responsible adult. We realise that they have to play a significant role but we look to all parents and friends and professionals to help as best they can. The police are not in a position to judge how good a responsible adult is and who would or would not be classified as a responsible adult. If they are in doubt, the police should seek to ensure that a solicitor is present.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, expressed concern about remand prisoners. Such prisoners are not held under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and therefore the role of the custody officer is not the same. He will be anxious to get a mentally ill person into hospital if he possibly can. The
638
noble Lord, Lord Richard, stated that mentally ill people used not to be questioned but that now they can be questioned. I think that there may be a misunderstanding in regard to that matter. We never debarred the questioning of mentally disordered persons. However, the safeguards are strong; for example, the requirement for an appropriate adult. Those taken to a police station as a place of safety under the Mental Health Act 1983 will not normally be questioned about any offence, as is clear from the code.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to ethical interviewing. It is essential that police officers have the skills and confidence to interview suspects properly. I know that the Association of Chief Police Officers has recently set up a working party to see whether guidance can be given. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the very important work it is doing.
The noble Lord also referred to senior officers giving consent to searches of premises which are controlled by an arrested person. The authority of an inspector is required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Without amending that Act we cannot do anything about the matter. It is a point that we shall note for future consideration, without committing the Government one way or another.
As regards withdrawal of consent to search, I agree that it is inconvenient if a person suddenly refuses consent after first agreeing. I cannot see how one can stop that happening or pretend that consent exists if it does not exist.
I accept that the codes are complicated. They are lengthy and detailed. I know that anxiety existed at the outset as to how the police would be able to work them. It was thought that they would be intrusive to policing. I am glad to say—the noble Lord, Lord Knights, confirmed this—that that view has changed. On the whole, police officers are now content with the codes despite the fact that they are fairly stringent. The codes enable them to know the parameters within which they can work without being told that they have acted incorrectly.
I am grateful to noble Lords for welcoming these codes. I hope that the codes will prove another step forward in the successful operation of policing in this country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1990
7.21 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to add three substances to the list of substances which are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. They are N-Hydroxy Tenamphetamine, 4-Methyl-Am inorex and Midazolam. The order is necessary in order to enable

639
the United Kingdom to comply with a decision, taken last January, to bring these three substances under the control of the 1971 United Nations convention on psychotropic substances. As a party to that convention we in the United Kingdom are obliged to take corresponding measures to bring the drugs under the control of our own domestic legislation. I cannot profess to be a pharmacologist and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be kind enough not to press me to explain the composition of the drugs in too much detail, nor to ask me to keep repeating their names.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will repeat his speech.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is most encouraging in asking me to repeat the speech; perhaps I shall do so.
I take the simplest-sounding drug first. Midazolam is used in hospitals as a pre-operative sedative. It is marketed in the United Kingdom under the proprietary name of Hypnovel. It is one of the group of drugs known as the benzodiazepines, 33 of which are already controlled under the misuse of drugs legislation.
As far as we know, the drug is not currently being misused in this country. But according to the World Health Organisation, whose experts advise the United Nations on questions of drug scheduling, abuse of midazolam is reported in several countries. There is also evidence in a number of countries of illicit trafficking and diversion of it for nefarious purposes.
The other two drugs have stimulant properties which are similar to the amphetamine group of drugs, but neither is used for clinical or therapeutic purposes. According to the World Health Organisation's experts N-Hydroxy Tenamphetamine—which is also known as N-Hydroxy MDA—has been identified in illicit traffic in both the USA and Europe, and clandestine production has been reported.
With regard to 4-Methyl-Aminorex, the World Health Organisation said that although no epidemiological data of actual abuse is available there have been individual case reports and at least one death has been reported. There is evidence of illicit traffic and clandestine production in the United States of America. We can be thankful that there is no evidence that these substances are currently being misused in the United Kingdom. By scheduling them now, in accordance with our treaty obligations, we can hope that this will prevent any abuse in the future.
In accordance with statutory requirements the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been consulted about the proposals to bring these
640
substances under control. The council is content that all three substances should be made subject to control. The order proposes that N-Hydroxy Tenamphetamine and 4-Methyl-Aminorex should be added to the list of controlled drugs which are specified in Class A of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. The effect will be that the unlawful possession and supply of these drugs will become punishable on indictment by maximum penalties of seven years and life imprisonment respectively or an unlimited fine, or both.
Midazolam would be added to the list of drugs which are specified in Class C of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. This is the lowest tier of classification and its effect will be that the unlawful possession and supply of the drugs will become punishable on indictment by maximum penalties of two years and five years' imprisonment respectively or an unlimited fine, or both.
If the order is approved my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will submit amendment regulations which will bring all three drugs under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985. In broad terms, these controls will be similar to those which apply to other drugs which have the same potential for abuse. The regulatory proposals, which have been recommended by the advisory council, will comply with the obligations of the United Nations convention. My right honourable friend has consulted the organisations which represent the medical professions and the pharmaceutical industry and I am glad to say that the proposals have their support.
Despite the fact that the substances mentioned in the order are practically beyond both the comprehension and articulation by the layman, I believe that your Lordships will find the order and its contents uncontroversial. If the order is approved it is my right honourable friend's aim to bring it and the relevant amendment regulations into force in February of next year. I commend the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have only two comments to make. First, I thank the noble Earl for his kind words about me when speaking on the previous order. Secondly, I congratulate him and express my admiration of the skill with which he threaded his way through the medical dictionary. He will be happy to hear that I have nothing to say on the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.

  LAW COMMISSIONERS: QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT
  LAW COMMISSIONERS: QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS: 25th-30th OCTOBER 1990
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS: 25th-30th OCTOBER 1990
  DOMESTIC WORKERS FROM OVERSEAS
  DOMESTIC WORKERS FROM OVERSEAS
  KUWAITIS RESIDENT IN THE UK
  KUWAITIS RESIDENT IN THE UK
  ROMANIA: HUMANITARIAN AID
  ROMANIA: HUMANITARIAN AID
  NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS: EC LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTATION
  NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS: EC LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTATION
  POPULATION INFORMATION: REQUEST
  POPULATION INFORMATION: REQUEST
  US-IRAQ INITIATIVE
  US-IRAQ INITIATIVE
  ANTARCTIC MINERAL RESOURCE ACTIVITIES
  ANTARCTIC MINERAL RESOURCE ACTIVITIES
  CAMBODIA
  CAMBODIA
  CONTROL OF POLLUTION: CONSULTATION PAPER
  CONTROL OF POLLUTION: CONSULTATION PAPER