Sitting of 1 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
  CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL

    HUMBERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 February.

  CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration for Lords amendments read.
  To be considered on Thursday 8 February.

  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered on Thursday 8 February.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
  HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
  PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
  SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)
  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  VENTNOR HARBOUR BILL (By Order)
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
  MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 February.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 8 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Devolution
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about his recent statement on devolution.
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the discussions concerning the devolution of political power within Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): My speech in Bangor, Co. Down, on 9 January addressed the possibilities and prospects of transferring some degree of political power, authority and responsibility to politicians in Northern Ireland. There has been widespread reaction, none of it wholly unfavourable.
    Much now depends on the willingness and ability of local politicians to find a way forward together. The Government are ready to help in any way they can to bring about talks between the parties. The next step is likely to be further discussions between the Government and the parties.
    Mr. Gill: When my right hon. Friend looks at the new map of Europe, does he see any evidence that direct rule satisfies the needs of the people for democratic and popular government? Does he agree that the legitimate ambitions of peoples and nations to regain their institutions is important and that the closer Governments are to the people that they serve, the more economic, accountable and responsive they will be? Does he recognise that those are rhetorical questions—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Such a long question is a very bad start to Question Time.
    Mr. Brooke: I recognise that my hon. Friend's questions are rhetorical. Recently the Irish Times carried a cartoon, half of which was devoted to a crowd in eastern Europe saying to someone on a balcony, "Negotiate, Power to the people, Elections, Freedom." In the Northern Ireland version, I appeared to resemble the person on the balcony. I was saying the same things, but the crowd was saying nothing. I look forward to a reply.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Secretary of State agree that matters in Northern Ireland are not helped by the obdurate behaviour of Allan Dukes and Fine Gael? That questionable behaviour brought about the cancellation of yesterday's Intergovernmental Conference. What further steps is he taking in the presentation of his case for devolution, in the light of the recent findings of the Belfast Telegraph-BBC "Newsnight" survey which showed that only 21 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland have any faith in a power-sharing arrangement? Will he give some sustenance to his colleagues in the Scottish Office on the principle of political devolution?
    Mr. Brooke: As a former member of the Whips' Office, I make no comment on the practices of Opposition parties in the Dail. I studied the survey in the Belfast Telegraph,
    418
    but the hon. Gentleman may be forgetting that some of the questions had a second choice attached to them as well as a first.
    Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in favour of a legislative assembly—
    Hon. Members: Scotland?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are Northern Ireland questions.
    Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in favour of a legislative assembly in Belfast?
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I agree that we need to look at appropriate constitutional practices in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: As Northern Ireland is the only part of the British isles which does not have proper local government, is not there an urgent need to restore power to our local councils?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may not have meant to refer to the British isles, but, as he knows, conversations are going on about whether further powers may be transferred.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Joking apart, the quickest way of breaking up the United Kingdom is by going for a policy of legislative devolution. How does my right hon. Friend justify his policy for devolution in Northern Ireland and reconcile it with the Government's opposition to devolution in Scotland?
    Mr. Brooke: I was not joking when I said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I agree that we need appropriate constitutional arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have been exploring with politicians and parties in Northern Ireland how there might be a transfer of power and responsibility. In my speech in Bangor I simply gave what I thought was the considered view of the parties to whom we have spoken.
    Mr. Hume: With regard to the Secretary of State's request to the parties of Northern Ireland today, will he confirm that on each occasion that I and my SDLP colleagues have met the right hon. Gentleman we have made unequivocally clear, without preconditions, our willingness to engage in talks on any subject with all the parties in Northern Ireland, and that further to that, in order to meet the express sensitivities of the Unionist parties, we are willing to seek with them an agreement which, by addressing all the dimensions of the problem, would transcend in importance any previous agreement ever made?
    Mr. Brooke: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, save to say that saying that his position was wholly without preconditions might be overstating it a little.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I commend my right hon. Friend on his speech in my constituency. As the leader of one of Northern Ireland political parties, I am willing to participate in the talks that my right hon. Friend has mentioned and to sit at the table for as long as is necessary

    419
    to produce. if possible, some constitutional progress, and I urge all leaders of constitutional parties to participate in those talks.
    Mr. Brooke: As I said when I had the pleasure of visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency and welcoming him in the audience, I was delighted to be there, and I welcome the letter that he has since written to me stating his willingness to participate.

    Community Workshops
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will defer for a period of 12 months his proposals for the community workshops in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): No. I have listened carefully to the representations made to me in recent weeks and at my meeting on Monday with the workshops I told them of changes that the Government were prepared to make to meet their concerns.
    Mr. Beggs: I thank the Minister for his response and I want to record the appreciation of the delegation from the workshops. The Minister was receptive and responsive to their needs and fears about their future, but will he give me an assurance today that the operation of workshops will be monitored closely during the next 12 months to ensure that there will be no insolvency and that they will be protected and supported so that they can provide and maintain jobs and training in areas of high unemployment?
    Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland consider setting up a mechanism whereby the Under-Secretaries responsible for education and economic development could regularly meet the authorities representing further education in Northern Ireland to consider the main problems that they face and to endeavour to resolve them?
    Mr. Needham: On the first part of the question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall work together and monitor closely how the community workshops get on. I have arranged a conference with representatives from them in the autumn, when we can all get together and discuss how progress is being made. The insolvency issue has a wider dimension because it is part of the regulations covering all company law, but we shall discuss it and see what can be done. I shall pass on the request in the final part of the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stott: I reinforce the request made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). Does the Minister agree that, having reached agreement with community workshops about the new youth training programme, his colleague in the Department of Education should turn his attention to the devastating effects that the proposals would have on further education-based YTP? Is it not the case that the Government intend to save money and that, as a result, the more expensive and high-quality further education-based YTP will disappear, leaving many of Northern Ireland's young people disadvantaged in the training they receive?
    Mr. Needham: The basis of our proposals for the workshops is to improve the quality of training received
    420
    there. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are some good workshops in Northern Ireland and some that need to be brought up to the quality of the best. By introducing the new scheme we are ensuring that much more is done on employers' premises to get the youngsters involved in those workshops ready for the world of work, that we are sure will come about in the 1990s. Obviously, that requires an input from the further education colleges to give the generally broad training skills that young people need in the workshops.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I endorse what the previous speakers have said about the thanks that are due for the reappraisal of the scheme. Will the Minister give an assurance that if, with regard to solvency, the scheme does not come up to his expectations, he will look at it again?
    Mr. Needham: I will discuss the matter carefully and see what can be done. I do not have a magic wand to solve the insolvency problem, but I am sure that, working together, we can find a sensible way round it.

    Republic of Ireland
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will next meet Ministers of the Republic of Ireland; and what matters he proposes to discuss.
    Mr. Brooke: I expect to meet Mr. Collins shortly to discuss a number of important issues that were on the agenda of the postponed Intergovernmental Conference on 31 January.
    Mr. Hunter: When my right hon. Friend next meets Ministers of the Republic will he express the disillusionment felt by many people about the Anglo-Irish Agreement—a one-way road if ever there was one? Will he also express the significance that many people see in the fact that all constitutional parties in Northern Ireland now look for the end of direct rule?
    Mr. Brooke: It would be a little hypocritical of me to express precisely the views of which my hon. Friend speaks, as I find the Anglo-Irish Agreement an extremely good vehicle for the conduct of business between Irish Ministers and me. As to his question, I have noted—as I am sure many hon. Members have—the results of the Belfast Telegraph poll.
    Mr. Mallon: Has the disgraceful matter of the delay in holding inquests in the north of Ireland been raised in discussions with Irish Ministers? I know that the Secretary of State, as a man of compassion, will understand the suffering and distress that the delay causes the bereaved families. Will he extend those discussions with the Irish Government and his colleagues to ensure that inquests are held within a reasonable period, that Northern Ireland inquests have the right to bring in verdicts not findings and that all material witnesses can be compelled to attend and give evidence?
    Mr. Brooke: I have, on past occasions, discussed inquests with Irish Ministers. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, although I do not know that the Government would wish to be involved in advancing each of his proposals.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State find it strange that there was no problem yesterday in suspending the meeting between Ministers from London and Dublin to save the Eire budget, yet it appears impossible for the Government to suspend the Anglo-Irish Agreement to save the lives of people in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand that the conference was cancelled yesterday because of pairing difficulties in the Dail. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I are both former pairing Whips and thus have sympathy with that problem. I once brought the present Foreign Secretary home from Nepal for a vote that we won by 262–0. It made so deep an impression on him that he included it in his latest novel, although he reduced the majority to 17, thus proving again that truth is stranger than fiction.
    Mr. William Ross: When the Secretary of State meets his opposite number in the Irish Republic, does he intend to discuss the implications of the Colin Wallace affair—and if not, why not? Do not certain aspects of that affair impinge upon the Northern Ireland Office?
    Mr. Brooke: Before coming to the House today, I inquired whether the Irish Government, through the secretariat, had raised that matter since my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces answered a written question on Tuesday. I understand that the Irish Government have not, so far, raised that matter, but I shall be meeting Irish Ministers again in the future, when it may arise.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: When my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. Collins and his colleagues, will he tell them that, contrary to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), a great majority of hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, still believe in the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will he also tell them that a great majority of Members support everything that he is doing to try to bring devolution to Northern Ireland, as that will be in the interests of its people and will give them greater local power?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: As one former Whip to another, I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State that will show that truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction. When the right hon. Gentleman next discusses economic matters with his Irish counterparts, will he confirm that when Shorts was privatised the Government retained ownership of four leasing companies? Will he give the reasons for doing so? Was it because of taxation or was it because Bombardier refused to accept any potential loss on those leases? Is any employee of the four leasing companies retained by the Government also working for the newly privatised Shorts company?
    Mr. Brooke: The points about Shorts to which the hon. Gentleman referred were part of the original negotiations and arrangements. In the context of the leasing companies, it was not easy to calibrate the consequences. Shorts Brothers, under Bombardier's ownership, has an agreement with the Government for the management of those arrangements, which were built into the deal that we made.

    Preventive Health Care
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the promotion of preventive health care; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: The Government have made health promotion a major priority in developing health and social services in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend recognises the increasingly important part played by preventive medicine in the National Health Service throughout the country. Can he reassure the House that the funding for such a programme in Northern Ireland is on a par with that in the remainder of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Needham: Indeed, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We intend to spend £900,000 in the coming year on health promotion in Northern Ireland, which is an increase in budget of about 50 per cent. It has always been said that there was a higher chance of having a heart attack after an Ulster breakfast than after breakfast anywhere else in the world. It is certainly true that there is a very good chance of being well treated in Ulster. During the past five years the incidence of heart attacks has been reduced
    by about 15 per cent. One reason for that is the Government's emphasis on and determination to follow a health promotion campaign.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister expand on his answer to me of 14 November and explain how the new remuneration system for doctors will help to prevent heart disease, promote the cessation of smoking, and alleviate stress-related complaints?
    Mr. Needham: The general practitioners' new contract will help to achieve exactly what the hon. Gentleman seeks, as it requires them to offer patients aged between 16 and 74 consultation when they require it. Bonuses will be paid to doctors who achieve particular immunisation rates. The whole point of the new contract is to meet the targets that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I am sure that in fulfilling that new contract, the vast majority of the medical profession in Northern Ireland will improve the health of the Province's population by extending the preventive aspects of their work.

    Road Casualties
    Mr. Kilfedder: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of road casualties in the Province at the current time and in previous years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): In the 1960s, Northern Ireland had the best road safety record of any region or part of the United Kingdom. Since 1986, it has had the worst. Northern Ireland can return to having the safest roads. That is the aim of the road casualty reduction programme launched last autumn. One hundred and eighty-one people died on the roads in 1989.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I congratulate my hon. Friend on promoting the "Don't drink and drive" campaign, which has helped to reduce the number of casualties, but does he agree that praise is due also to others who have

    423
    contributed to the reduction in the carnage on the roads—including the media, which gave publicity to the road safety campaign?
    Mr. Bottomley: If people can have their consciousness and awareness raised with the help of brewers, pubs and off-licences, fewer of them will be offered drink before driving—and drink is still the biggest factor linked with death on the roads. It is important to reach the target of cutting road deaths in Northern Ireland from an average of 210 to 140 per year. That saving of 70 lives per year would probably be very welcome in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: In view of the Minister's obvious and much-publicised concern for road safety, will he explain why his own Department's officials do not seem to share his views? They refused to allow the completion of the bypass of Killead and the dangerous A26, and they are very much against road crossings—particularly in Fountain street, Antrim.
    Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will meet me so that we can discuss those issues. One problem is that a number of hon. Members keep away from Ministers. Perhaps we can start working together instead.
    Rev. William McCrea: Given the Minister's interest in road safety in Northern Ireland, does he agree that his Department should demonstrate more concern for achieving uniform salting and gritting of roads in the Province? Drivers passing from one council's area into another are lulled into a sense of false security and then become involved in accidents. Will the Minister take a personal interest in that matter?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, I will. However, I should not want the hon. Gentleman to promote the idea that road casualty reductions are a matter of concern to me only. Road safety councils throughout Northern Ireland have been working on that problem far longer than I have. One reason why road deaths are down from 300 to 200 and will, we hope, reduce further, is because of all their work. Of course, I shall try to ensure that there is consistency in road salting, but I ask all drivers to prepare for bad road conditions and not to assume that the Government can wave a magic wand and save them from the consequences of their own driving.

    Republic of Ireland
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to announce any further initiatives to promote economic co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland specifically in the border areas.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference initiated last year a systematic programme of assessment of all the main sectors, to determine where the process of social and economic co-operation can most fruitfully be expanded. The first result of that work is a joint Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland paper outlining possible programme measures that both Governments would wish to see supported under the European Community's transfrontier initiative. The paper is in the final stages of agreement and will, I hope, shortly be submitted to the Commission.
    Mr. Evans: As areas on both sides of the border are suffering serious economic deprivation, which is leading to depopulation, do the Government have any plans post-1992 to discuss further with both the Irish Government and the European Commission proposals for improving prosperity in those areas?
    Mr. Cope: Yes. The paper is about improving prosperity in the border areas that the hon. Gentleman mentions and covers many economic activities. It deals also with making use of wider co-operation in helping all parts of the island of Ireland.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the damage being done to the economies of border towns by the refusal of the Government of the south of Ireland to allow their citizens to visit those towns for shopping expeditions? When did he last raise that issue with the Government of the south of Ireland? Will the Northern Ireland Office be represented at the forthcoming case in the European Court at Luxembourg?
    Mr. Cope: We raised it at our last meeting with Irish Ministers. But more importantly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is coming before the European Court. The United Kingdom Government will be represented at those hearings.
    Mr. McGrady: I refer the Minister to the reply I received from the Secretary of State on 14 December at column 1156 in Hansard where he gave a not unfavourable reply to the request to set up a cross-border economic committee to look into the consequences of the Single European Act with particular reference to the harmonisation of VAT, fiscal rates and a common currency. What progress has been made since that date?
    Mr. Cope: We did not quite agree with the agenda, but, apart from that, most of the matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are being discussed through the European Community.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his most recent meeting with Cabinet Ministers of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: I last met Ministers from the Irish Republic at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 30 November 1989. The joint statement issued afterwards was placed in the Library. A meeting of the Conference was due to be held on 31 January but was postponed due to the unavailability of Irish Ministers.
    Mr. Ross: How would the right hon. Gentleman have explained to the Irish Government how that part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that seeks to improve public confidence in the security forces would have been advanced by the Government's handling of the Colin Wallace affair?
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a statement on that matter

    425
    later this afternoon. For me to engage in what Irish Ministers and I would have said to each other yesterday is not perhaps the most constructive use of the House's time.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that increased prosperity will contribute to the defeat of terrorism in the Province and the Republic? What progress is being monitored in discussions about the increase in inward investment to the Province and the Republic and how does the Northern Ireland Development Board, whose success we all admire, work with its counterpart in the Republic?
    Mr. Brooke: I am glad to agree with my hon. Friend about the contribution that jobs and fuller employment make towards the security situation in Northern Ireland. As to collaboration with the Republic, both the Republic and ourselves are vividly aware that we are in competition for inward investment and sometimes find ourselves directly competing.
    Mr. Molyneaux: At the last Conference did the British team put forward suggestions for the consideration of a new and more workable Agreement? Did they urge the necessity of the reasonable request for the suspension of the present Agreement for a limited period? If they did not, will they do so at the next meeting in view of Mr. Haughey's more flexible attitude?
    Mr. Brooke: Immediately after the last Conference I said that suspension had not been discussed. However the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of paragraph 29 of the review of the Agreement that we published last year which stated that both Governments would be prepared to consider without preconditions any propositions put before them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that it is a subject which we will discuss at future Conferences.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Did my right hon. Friend discuss at the Intergovernmental Conference the proposals for some form of local government in Northern Ireland? If he did, did those attending the Intergovernmental Conference think it was a good idea, and if they did not, can they tell us why?
    Mr. Brooke: That subject has not been discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference since I became Secretary of State.
    Mr. Duffy: This week's RAF involvement in air-sea rescue missions off Westport and in the Irish sea raises once again the question of the adequacy of the emergency services on both sides of the Irish sea and as between the north and the south of Ireland. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the quality and liaison of such services are a proper subject for the Intergovernmental Conference? As such air-sea rescues increasingly now involve foreign vessels, especially Spanish fishing vessels, will he explore with his colleagues in Dublin the need for international funding of such provision, the burden of which is mostly now borne—magnificently, of course—by the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman makes a constructive suggestion. I do not know whether it would fall naturally within the agenda of a Conference, but it is quite clearly something which could be discussed in the margin of a Conference even if it were not on the agenda.
    Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State referred earlier to a statement that will be made later today, but in the answer given earlier this week a matter referred to which was the responsibility of the Secretary of State—the role of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In the light, therefore, of truth being stranger than fiction, and of the Colin Wallace allegations, will he now order a complete investigation into Mr. Wallace's allegations concerning the Kincora boys home? Will he also give a complete guarantee that Mr. Wallace will not be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act for any information concerning that affair and concerning the security forces that he might give to the RUC? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to give serious consideration to the evidence published by Mr. Paul Foot and the forensic report drawn up by Mr. Radley suggesting that Mr. Wallace's memorandum concerning the events in the Kincora boys home is genuine?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman would, I think, be the first to acknowledge that this does not naturally fall within the purview of the main question. However, to be helpful to the House, if Mr. Wallace has evidence that he wishes to submit in relation to the Kincora affair, he should give that evidence to the RUC and if it is classified information he should first consult the director of Army security. As to forensic evidence, I owe the hon. Gentleman a letter.
    Mr. Ashdown: Following on that answer, will the Secretary of State at least give the House an unequivocal assurance that no Clockwork Orange-type of operation is now taking place in Northern Ireland or in any part of the United Kingdom on matters relating to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave a very specific response on that very question in the answer that he gave on Tuesday.

    Employment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about employment trends since 1983.
    Mr. Needham: At September 1989, there were an estimated 514,000 employees in employment. This showed a slight increase from the level a year earlier and was some 13,700 higher than five years earlier.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that record is somewhat superior to that of the Republic, where there has been a 40,000 reduction in the number of people in industrial employment since 1982? Do not these differences underline the fact that the social market economy rather than the social charter is the best engine of economic progress?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that the social charter will have much benefit for the Northern Ireland economy. However, in the 1990s it is crucial for us to be able to sell ourselves on our merits, which are very substantial. We have a bright, young, well-educated work force, low labour costs and an attractive grants package, and there is no conceivable reason why we should not do better in the 1990s than we have been able to do in the 1980s.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Secretary of State give immediate consideration to the need to protect the remaining jobs at

    427
    GEC-Alsthom at Larne in my constituency where 200 redundancies have been announced because of Government policy not to order new nuclear and, indeed, coal-fired stations? Will the Secretary of State therefore endeavour to seek Government approval to proceed with the Kilroot phase II project, which might help save some jobs there?
    Mr. Needham: I am not responsible for the purchasing policy of the nuclear power industry or of National Power and PowerGen. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland is working as closely as it can with GEC to find alternative orders.

    Housing
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of construction of the average public sector dwelling in Northern Ireland in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The average tender costs were about £21,700 for 1986–87, £22,400 for 1987–88, and £22,800 last year.
    Our goals are to meet urgent housing need and to improve housing conditions in Northern Ireland in rural as well as urban areas.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Housing Executive on the effective way in which it has added to housing stock? Will he assure the House that he is pushing the right to buy, which is the most effective way of involving people in communities and home ownership? What is he doing to add to the resources of the Housing Executive?
    Mr. Bottomley: All who work for the executive and its members will be grateful for that tribute—which I know will be paid by the whole House—regarding the non-sectarian way in which housing is administered in Northern Ireland. The promotion of the right to buy has been assisted by the arrangements that we have made to add to the executive's resources. Gross resources available in Northern Ireland will be increased by £17 million compared with the previous plans for 1990–91, and spending on housing in the current year has increased by £12 million because of an increase in receipts from house sales and additional resources provided by the Government.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that the major housing problem in Northern Ireland is rural housing, to which the urban development grant system did not apply? Is the Department reviewing its approach to housing in rural areas?
    Mr. Bottomley: That is an important point. Half of all unfit houses are now in rural areas. It is important to continue the attack on bad conditions in towns and in the countryside. It is becoming clearer that we need a policy of rural improvement to improve housing and, where possible, to use the skills of local people in rural areas rather than outside contractors. We have not yet found a way forward, but we are certainly considering the problem.
    Mr. Cecil A. Walker: The Minister must be aware of the swingeing cuts in the Housing Executive's budget over the past three years, which has resulted in a 30 per cent. decrease in new house building. I am sure that he is also aware that repairs in the rehabilitation sector have been drastically reduced and that enveloping schemes are now being discontinued. We welcome extra resources, but will the Minister please consider using the Belfast action teams on the necessary environmental works that are urgently required in vandalised areas?
    Mr. Bottomley: With the exception of saying that there should be a large new-build programme, which is not necessarily what Northern Ireland needs, the House will agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. It is important to ensure environmental improvement so that housing areas are good inside and outside their front doors to create an uplift in Northern Ireland.

    Security Forces
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to promote public confidence in the security forces.
    Mr. Cope: We attach great importance to encouraging widespread public support for, and confidence in, the police and Army in Northern Ireland as they perform their difficult and dangerous tasks. Careful and constant attention is given to ways of improving relations between them and all parts of the community.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Minister will be aware that in the past both communities in Northern Ireland have complained about the activities of some RUC officers. Does he accept that Sir John Hermon, by failing to resign, successfully blackmailed the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland into not prosecuting RUC officers after the shoot-to-kill investigations? Will the Minister give an assurance that no one in Northern Ireland is above the law and that he will not give in to similar blackmail?
    Mr. Cope: I happily give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I do not accept the premise of the earlier part of his question.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that confidence in the security forces would be helped forward if certain unsolved murders were solved? Will he assure me that instead of leaving the Enniskillen massacre in the hands of the local police he will ensure that a special branch unit will work in Enniskillen until that terrible massacre is solved and the people responsible for it are brought to justice?
    Mr. Cope: I absolutely agree about the necessity to solve as many of these terrible unsolved murders in Northern Ireland as we possibly can. The hon. Gentleman's particular request is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, but I will certainly pass it on to him. Both the Chief Constable and I would like nothing better than to see that murder in particular solved.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Minister agree that the surest way of increasing confidence in the security forces is for the community to see that they act within the law at all times? Does he further agree that that applies not just to the behaviour of the security forces but to all involved in

    429
    Government in the north of Ireland, who should remember the Lord Denning dictat that be you ever so high, the law is above you?
    Mr. Cope: It is, of course, important that all members of the security forces and, indeed, everybody else concerned with government and so on, and the public, should remain within the rule of law, and that is what we support entirely.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February 1990.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the Prime Minister agree that in her speech to the National Childrens Home regarding the responsibility of fathers for the physical and financial well-being of their children living in a separate household, she understood that she would strike a chord with many people who normally do not agree with her policies? Will she tell the House why, among other policies that discriminate against fathers who try to take that responsibility, the Government in 1988 introduced a Budget which imposed income tax on payments made by fathers to their children in a way that helps to sustain them in a fashion that hon. Members in all parts of the House would wish to see?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about that speech—that fathers should take responsibility for children, particularly for illegitimate children, because they need the support. As he will be aware, there will be changes in taxation for married couples coming into force in the new financial year, and I shall put the particular point he raises to the Chancellor.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February 1990.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: After so many years of acrimonious dissent, does my right hon. Friend not think it rather optimistic to expect the Northern Ireland party political leaders to reach some agreement over a devolved administration for their Province? Instead, perhaps the Government should set up a review into the shape and structure of regional and local government in Northern Ireland. I remind her that it is exactly 20 years since Sir Patrick McCrory produced his report on the structure of local government in Northern Ireland. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a new review would be a timely contribution ahead of any talks that may take place between the party political leaders?
    The Prime Minister: We would all wish to see greater involvement in local government in Northern Ireland of local government people. We have considered that on many occasions and put it to the several parties. I do not think that we could bring it in unless we had the agreement of the different parties to proper devolved local government, and we have not yet succeeded in that. My right hon. Friend has asked the parties to come in and talk, and I am sure that that would be one of the first matters that he would wish to put to them.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has made it clear this week that she was given seriously inaccurate information about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace and that that incorrect information caused her to mislead the House. Will she therefore, as head of the Security Services, make a full statement to the House? Will she also commission a form of inquiry that has the power to ensure that the full truth is told about the alleged efforts to discredit public figures and Members of Parliament of several parties, including her party, and to subvert elected Governments?
    The Prime Minister: First, my statement to the House on 6 May 1987 stands. It is not affected by the new information. Secondly, Mr. Wallace was a civil servant employed by the Ministry of Defence at the Army headquarters in Northern Ireland as an information officer. It seems right, therefore, that a statement was made by a Minister at the Ministry of Defence on Tuesday and will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence today. The statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces indicated that there is an inquiry into Mr. Wallace's case before the Civil Service appeal board, to be conducted by Mr. Calcutt QC and there is also an inquiry in the Ministry of Defence on how certain documents came to be overlooked.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry, but that answer does not begin to address the very basic questions. I put it to the Prime Minister that the information which, in her words, has "now come to light" somewhat offsets the credibility of her statement in May 1987 that there was "no evidence" of misuse of information by any members of the security services. Surely, that fact alone justifies a full inquiry.
    As the Wallace case raises serious issues of civil liberties and serious allegations of efforts to discredit Members of Parliament and to undermine elected Governments, it would be intolerable if the Prime Minister proposed to do absolutely nothing other than to hide behind anonymous civil servants.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's assertions are correct. In so far as new information came forth, and in so far as that has affected earlier statements, the details were given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and set out in very considerable detail in his statement to the House. My own statement on 6 May 1987 was not affected by the new information and the new information provides no evidence of attempts to undermine or discredit Ministers. This is a matter of the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case to the Civil Service appeal board. That has been put correct. In so far as the new information affected anything that Ministers have said during this Administration, we came straight to the House, a statement was made and letters were written to people who might otherwise have had incorrect information. The

    431
    statement was, in accordance with tradition, shown to the former Ministers with responsibility for defence and for Northern Ireland in the previous Labour Administration and their comments were invited.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is not the Prime Minister aware that throughout the House and among wider interested parties, there is a strong opinion that neither the Calcutt inquiry, for all its worth, nor the internal inquiry by the Ministry of Defence is broad enough or open enough to satisfy the public interest? Can she explain how she made a statement in May 1987, based honestly on the evidence that then existed, and how, by her own reckoning, new evidence, new details and new facts have "now come to light"? How can she claim, in the light of all those circumstances, that her statement then still stands and should not be liable to any form of reconsideration or revision?
    The Prime Minister: Because, for the third time of asking, the new information does not provide any evidence to undermine my statement to the House on 6 May 1987. It is of a much narrower kind than that, as was set out by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in his very detailed statement, which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman for detailed reading.
    Mr. Heseltine: Will my right hon. Friend recognise the seriousness of the description of the Leader of the Opposition about the events that are alleged to have taken place? Which Government were in power when those events took place?
    The Prime Minister: The documents that have been mentioned refer to events in 1974–75, a very long time ago, which is why the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was, of course, shown to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), and to Lord Mason, Lord Carrington and Lord Whitelaw. Comments were invited. These are matters which occurred in 1975 or earlier.
    Mr. Rees: The fact that Lord Carrington and Lord Whitelaw were brought into the consultations—and most of the documents—proves that what happened against many of us took place in 1971, 1972 and 1973. It is no good saying that it was just under a Labour Government. The right hon. Lady was a loyal member of the Cabinet at that time. Surely it is not just a matter of a Labour Government. It went on under both Governments. Indeed, there is evidence that the Prime Minister of the day was maligned as well. Surely what the right hon. Lady said about the dirty tricks of Wright cannot possibly cover what has now been revealed.
    The Prime Minister: Once again I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement which he saw and which was made in very full detail. These events took place about 15 years ago. There is nothing in the new information which was the cause of the statement to the House which casts doubt on my own statement of 6 May 1987, which was about very much wider matters.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recruitment of more paramedically qualified staff to the ambulance service is needed to improve the service? Will she confirm that an offer has been made that will enhance that recruitment? Does she share my puzzlement that the union leaders seem to be opposed to it?
    The Prime Minister: In the ambulance service, particularly the accident and emergency part of the service, we need more people with higher medical qualifications. At the moment there are very few—too few in our view—for the topmost efficiency of the service. That is why those people have been offered a 16·3 per cent. increase in pay over an 18-month period. It is to attract those people into the service which we wish to improve.
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: I thank the Prime Minister for the fact that at least in her letter to the Treasury Select Committee, by way of its Chairman, she expressed regret that in letters she had previously sent there were errors as a result of the false information which she had been given. Now that she has expressed this personal regret, and yet again has had to give account for things that happened before she took office as Prime Minister, and for the fact that she had to relay to the House information that has proved to be incorrect, will she not think again both about the need for a wider inquiry into the implications of this matter and about the accountability of the security services? Is it not the case that when Ministers are not directly answerable to Parliament for things, those things are less adequately covered by civil servants' accountability to them?
    The Prime Minister: In so far as there have been statements made that were incorrect or needed clarification, we came to the House and corrected those statements immediately. I think that that is greatly to the Government's credit. As soon as there was a need for a statement, we made it. With regard to the Security Service, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there was legislation that set up both a commissioner and a tribunal. That was a great advance, and I do not think we need any further inquiries now.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that this issue is far wider than the mere dismissal of Colin Wallace? Does not she know that at the Northern Ireland Assembly all the parties called for a public sworn inquiry into the Kincora scandal? These things will not go away, and the time has come for a full, open and honest uncovering of these matters so that people in Northern Ireland may know that the dirty tricks that were carried on have come to an end. Surely those at the receiving end have a right to have their say and put their case.
    The Prime Minister: The new information in the papers does not in any way substantiate Mr. Wallace's allegations in respect of the Kincora boys home. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has already been an inquiry into the matter, and the new information does not affect that; nor does it provide any evidence of attempts to undermine or discredit Ministers. My statement of 6 May 1987 therefore stands.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: There is growing support for the ambulance crews who are in dispute with the authorities

    433
    and with the Government, and the Prime Minister is becoming more and more isolated in her stance. Even more concern is being expressed over the harder line being taken by management and some police authorities. After an accident in my constituency on Sunday night, crews were turned away by the police in favour of the Red Cross. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I cannot obtain an answer. I need an assurance from the Prime Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask the Prime Minister a question.
    Mr. Michie: May we have an assurance from the Prime Minister and the Government that she is not instructing
    434
    the police or management to frustrate the work that the ambulance crews are trying to do in dealing with incidents of this nature? We need that assurance now.
    The Prime Minister: The police have had to step in where the accident and emergency services were not operating properly—and we all wish that they had been operating properly. As for the pay claim and the offer that has been made, many people would consider that an amount varying between 9 and 16·3 per cent.—for the more highly qualified—is reasonable. We expect those who deal with sick people, and on whom those sick people rely, to return to their first duty.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on agriculture on a motion to take note of EC documents, details of which will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, motions on social security benefit uprating orders and regulations. Afterwards motions on other social security regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (6th Alloted Day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Scottish Economy".
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to rights of residence. 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.
FRIDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I2 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock private Members' motions.
Remaining stages of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill.
It may be for the convenience of the House Mr. Speaker, to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House will rise for the Easter recess on Thursday 5 April until Wednesday 18 April.
[Tuesday 6 February
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) COM(89)660

Agricultural Price Proposals 1990–91

(b) 7010/89

Adjustments of agricultural structures

(c) 8309/89

Milk Quotas

(d) 8877/89

(e) OJ C128

Agrimonetary System (Court of Auditors Special Report No. 1/89)

(f) Un-numbered

Non-food Agricultural Commodities

(g) SEC(89)2097

Agricultural Situation: 1989 Report

(h) 8076/89

Set-aside of arable land

(i) 10912/89

Sheepmeat Regime: heavy lambs

(j) 7548/89

Monitoring of export refunds

(k) 7549/89

Scrutiny of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guarantee Section) expenditure

(l) 10850/89

(m) 7566/89

Physical inventory checks for intervention stocks

(n) Un-numbered

Sheepmeat and goatmeat Regime

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 11-vii ( 1989–90) para 6 and HC 11-viii (1989–90) para 1

(b) HC 11-v (1989–90) para 2

(c) HC 15-xxxii ( 1988–89) para 5 and HC 11-iii (1989–90) para 2

436

(d) HC 15-xxxvii (1988–89) para 4

(e) HC 15-xxvi ( 1988–89) para 2

(f) HC 11-vii (1989–90) para 5

(g) HC 11-viii (1989–90) para 8

(h) HC 15-xxx ( 1988–89) para 5

(i) HC 11-v (1989–90) para 9

(j) HC 15-xxix (1988–89) para 5

(k) HC 15-xxix (1988–89) para 5

(l) HC 11-vi (1989–90) para 5

(m) HC 15-xxviii (1988–89) para 6

(n) HC 15-xxxiv (1988–89) para 19

Wednesday 7 February
Until about Seven o'clock:
Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order
Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations
Afterwards:
Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Regular Employment) Regulations
Social Security (Recoupment) Regulations
Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Regulations (Opposition prayer EDM 424)
Income Support (Transitional) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations (Opposition prayer EDM 422)
Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations (Opposition prayer EDM 256)
Thursday 8 February
Relevant European Community Document 7706/89 Rights of Residence
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
HC. 15-xxxv (1988–89) para 1, HC 11-v (1989–90) para 1
and HC 11-vii (1989–90) para 1]
Dr. Cunningham: In view of the importance of public expenditure to all of us and our constituents, is the Leader of the House yet able to tell us when we can have a debate on the Government's public expenditure White Paper?
Given the widely reported news that the Top Salaries Review Body is recommending that judges, senior civil servants and officers in the armed forces are to be given salary increases of 13 per cent., will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Health to explain why people on high salaries are to be given such large increases, for which taxpayers will be obliged to pay, while the taxpayers themselves are denied the opportunity to fund a more generous settlement for ambulance personnel—something which they would be very happy indeed to do? Are not we entitled to an explanation of the perversity of Government decisions and of the unfairness of Government decisions in respect of ambulance workers?
Given the Prime Minister's very serious admission this week that she and other Ministers, albeit unwittingly, had given the House of Commons false information in respect of the Colin Wallace affair, is not it now clear that we in the Labour party have always been right in demanding that the security services be made accountable to Parliament? Is not it now obvious that we need greater accountability on the part of the security services to this House? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on this important matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already told the House in answer to an earlier question from the hon. Gentleman, I hope to arrange a debate on the public expenditure White Paper in the relatively near future. Obviously, the precise planning will have to be left to the usual channels.
The hon. Gentleman's second point concerned the announcement being made today of the Government's reaction to the reports of the various review bodies. He will know that that announcement is being made in accordance with practice established over many years: in the form of a written answer—indeed, I think, more than one. If the hon. Gentleman studies those matters carefully—and they deserve careful study—he will find that they relate to the levels of pay and remuneration for the financial year that has not yet started. He will recollect that the ambulance workers' pay claim relates to a year in which virtually every other group of workers in the National Health Service has settled. Virtually all the ambulance workers' colleagues have already settled at substantially lower figures. That is the point that needs to be taken into account.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, may I say that there will no doubt be a number of further discussions about the matters arising from the statement made earlier this week, and the statement that will be made later this afternoon. There will also be two Adjournment debates on related topics in the week ahead.
Several Hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that we are to have a very important statement. May I urge hon. Members who could keep their questions for another time to do so? I should like to get on to the statement by about 4 o'clock.
Mr. Tony Marlow: If my right hon. and learned Friend saw "Newsnight" last night he will be aware that the Government's proposal to go back on their election commitment not to open up more immigration to this country is rejected by two people out of three. Will he arrange an early debate so that the people of Hong Kong may realise that the commitment erroneously given by the Government will not be sustained by the House of Commons?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That question will have to be judged when the matter comes before the House in the appropriate fashion. My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a very full statement on this matter after his return from Hong Kong. It is my impression that that statement was very widely supported on both sides of the House.
Mr. James Wallace: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the dates of the Easter recess. Those of us who try to combine something of a family life with our parliamentary duties welcome his early announcement and hope that we can encourage him in this practice.
Has he had an opportunity to look at early-day motion 415 on drugs in sport?
[That this House notes with dismay and alarm events at the Commonwealth Games in Auckland which have resulted in competitors from the United Kingdom being tested positively for drugs; expresses its concern at the failure of Her Majesty's Government to bring anabolic steriods within the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and to make their
438
possession and supply criminal offences; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to cease its procrastination and either to introduce legislation for this purpose or to endorse the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East due for Second Reading on Friday 2 March, which is to the same effect.]
I am sure that he shares the dismay felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House at the fact that these Commonwealth Games, like the Olympics before them —which ought to have been celebrations of excellence—have been marred by the cheating of drug taking. Can he give an undertaking that the Government will make an early announcement that they will bring in their own provisions to outlaw the taking of anabolic steroids or, alternatively, that they will support the private Member's Bill of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of my announcement about the Easter recess. It is clearly desirable to proceed as far as is possible in the direction of giving people a greater assurance about such arrangements as far ahead as we can.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the concern that is widely felt about the evidence of drug taking in sporting activities. The importation and supply of anabolic steroids and similar drugs are subject to controls under the Medicines Act 1968. The Government are considering whether those controls should be strengthened.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give urgent consideration to providing the Opposition with an extra Supply day so that they can bring forward for discussion their tax proposals which, as The Independent has shown this morning, could well mean that over a period of time taxpayers who earn between £18,000 and £30,000 might be charged an extra £4,000 per annum in tax?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that important evidence about the high tax policies that are now being canvassed by the Labour party. We should be grateful to The Independent, whose birth is owed to the greater prosperity of that industry under this Government, for giving clear publicity to such important information.
Mr. Tony Benn: Two questions: first, are the Church measures coming forward soon; and secondly—
Hon. Members: No—one.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should ask only one question at business questions.
Mr. Benn: In that case, I shall leave that question.
Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a widespread feeling across the House that a Select Committee of the House—preferably the Select Committee on Privileges—should be allowed to hear the evidence submitted by Colin Wallace? As this point has been taken up by the Opposition, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is a matter on which I wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, can he say when he will be bringing forward a motion to permit that reference to be made?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman understands, I think, that questions of privilege are submitted in the first instance to you, Mr. Speaker, for your determination, before I can take any action whatsoever. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that he will have the opportunity of raising the very case with which he is concerned on the Adjournment debate on Monday week. He can develop his case then.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Following last week's inconclusive conference at Geneva on the Vietnamese boat people, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House next week to tell us what steps he is taking to improve conditions in the camps, to improve the screening procedure for the boat people in Hong Kong, and to set up an adequate monitoring service in Vietnam to look after the returned boat people?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that considerable progress was made at last week's conference to complete international agreement. All the participating countries, with the exceptions of the United States and Vietnam, agreed that the mandatory repatriation of non-refugees would start on 1 July 1990, with full international monitoring. I shall bring my hon. Friend's additional points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who may consider the points that he has made.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware that 13 people infected with AIDS due to routine blood transfusions have now died and that others face early death? Is he also aware that the ex gratia payment of £20,000 given to people infected with AIDS by blood products is not paid in transfusion cases? In view of the recent announcement by Canada's Health Minister that his Government will treat both cases equally for compensation, may we have a statement next week, hopefully, one that follows Canada's lead?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer an immediate answer to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friends at the Department of Health.
Mr. James Pawsey: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any detailed knowledge of the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner and of the Select Committee covering the Parliamentary Commissioner? Does he agree that there would be a substantial benefit if the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner and of the Select Committee were debated on the Floor of the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend knows, I have discussed that point with the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The usual pattern is that particular cases and reports that deserve attention are dealt with on the Floor of the House in the way that my hon. Friend describes. So far, there has not been a pattern of providing regular debates on matters dealt with by that Select Committee.
Mr. John D. Taylor: It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is division within the Government on devolution, as borne out by the recent speech by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in favour of it and another speech by the hon. Member for
440
Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) which dismissed devolution as constitutional nonsense. Will the Leader of the House bring forward a motion as soon as possible to outline the Government's policy towards devolution throughout the United Kingdom?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That point was dealt with in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a while ago. He said that all members of the Government, particularly those affected by devolution matters are in continuous consultation on devolution in different parts of the Kingdom. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will study with care my right hon. Friend's speech, which received widespread commendation although the right hon. Gentleman may not have been quite so optimistic about it.
Rev. William McCrea: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the deteriorating security situation in the Province? In the first few days of this year in my constituency, a young business man and part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment has been murdered, two young men are in intensive care having lost their legs in a terrorist bomb attack—both were members of the UDR—the village of Sion Mills in my constituency has been flattened in a matter of days and one of my colleagues on the Magherafelt district council has been the subject of an attempted murder. Does not that merit a full-scale debate in Government time?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman emphasises the impact of terrorism on his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and all members of the Government are aware of the importance of that. That is why we continue to maintain our campaign against terrorism as vigorously as possible. I shall take into account what the hon. Gentleman said in considering the programme for the weeks ahead.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his derisory reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) a few minutes ago about what form of inquiry or debate the House will hold on matters that are causing widespread anxiety throughout the country and the House? Is it not absurd that the Leader of the House should suggest that the whole matter could be dealt with in an Adjournment debate? Surely he should consider what form of general inquiry should be held. That is what the Government will be forced to do eventually, so why does he not use his authority to initiate an inquiry sooner rather than later? In the meantime will he make sure that a sufficient number of copies of Paul Foot's book on Colin Wallace are placed in the Library so that the misinformed members of his party can catch up with the rest of us?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I am in the business of promoting the business of the Foot family. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made a statement and produced a document on Tuesday dealing fully with that matter. That is an exemplar of the way in which the Government have sought to respond to any legitimate cause of anxiety about the matters raised in the book. There have been a range of inquiries. The outcome of the most recent investigations was fully reported to the

441
House in the answers given on Tuesday. There is no case for further inquiries such as the right hon. Gentleman requests.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make an early announcement about the way in which the Government propose to deal with the legislation on immigration from Hong Kong? Does he agree that the proposals are clearly a flagrant breach of the promises that were made by the Conservative party and that they involve a permanent change in the nature and composition of the British people? As there is no urgent need for the proposals, would it not be better to debate the matter on the Floor of the House so that the Government have a full opportunity to persuade the British people, against the wishes of some of us, to approve of the proposals rather than sending them for more private and disciplined consideration in Committee?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will know that procedures designed for the passage of legislation through the House include its consideration in the ordinary way by Standing Committee. This legislation will be brought before and debated by the House in the ordinary way and it will receive the consideration that it deserves. I must repudiate absolutely the suggestion that the legislation, when it comes forward, will represent a breach of any kind of breach, let alone a flagrant breach, by the Government.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: I recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many people in my constituency are in receipt of invalid care allowance and I received the answer that that figure was not available. Will the Leader of the House please look into that and try to discover why that figure is not available since the local DSS office must surely know who is in receipt of that benefit?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot answer for the statistical pattern of information available, but I shall bring the hon. Lady's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time, additional to that allocated on the Order Paper today, to discuss the five important motions that will affect the rights that Back-Bench Members have enjoyed for decades? As we are to have an important statement this afternoon, which will inevitably eat into the time allowed for that debate, and as that debate must finish at 7 o'clock, not much more than an hour and a half will be available. Given the importance of the motions to be considered, does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that that is sufficient?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that that is one reason why you, Mr. Speaker, have said that this is a case for a shorter than usual time to be allotted to business questions. My hon. Friend will also understand that the motions are the result of recommendations from the Select Committee on Procedure and that they have been before the House for consideration for a long time.
Mr. Keith Vaz: May we have an urgent statement on the issue of compensation for Christmas
442
island veterans? The Leader of the House is aware of the case of my constituent, John Hall, which was highlighted in early-day motion 37.
[That this House condemns the Government's policy towards compensation for ex-servicemen, like Mr. John Hall of Belgrave, Leicester, who served on Christmas Island during the nuclear tests in the 1950's and who as a result of this are suffering from the effects of exposure to radiation; and calls upon the Government to seize this opportunity to show compassion and justice by awarding substantial compensation to our Christmas Island veterans without further delay.]
Mr. Hall is dying of leukaemia and he has five separate medical reports which connect his serious illness to the events on Christmas Island. Today, with all-party support, he began legal proceedings against the Government because of their failure to pay compensation. Does not the Leader of the House believe that it would be fair and just in all the circumstances of these cases if the Government were to save Mr. Hall the agony of High Court proceedings and pay the compensation that those veterans so richly deserve?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is more than familiar with the background to the topic. He knows that, despite our sympathy with any particular case, we see no reason to make special compensation arrangements for test veterans. On the other hand, we are ready to pay appropriate compensation wherever the Crown's legal liability is established and where there is firm evidence to show that, on a balance of probabilities, ex-service men have suffered ill health as a result of exposure to radiation during the course of their duties. Despite my sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, there has been no change in the position.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, whatever my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) might say, there is strong support on the Conservative Benches for what many of us consider to be an honourable recognition of national responsibilities which is in no sense a repudiation of any manifesto commitment, and that even if it were necessary to adjust a manifesto commitment, circumstances can sometimes demand such a change?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the point of view that I have tried to express. The purpose of the Government's approach to the question is to take what steps are sensible and necessary to sustain the confidence of the people in Hong Kong and at the same time to reach conclusions acceptable to the British people. There will be ample opportunity to debate that matter.
Mr. David Winnick: May I press the Leader of the House on the need for a wider debate on the security services and for him as the Leader of the House to recognise that there is support on both sides of the House, certainly on the Labour Benches, for adequate parliamentary scrutinising of the security services which, to a large extent, remain a law unto themselves? With respect, Adjournment debates can be no substitute for a full-length debate. When shall we debate that matter, which has become all the more important as a result of the scandal,

443
the disinformation and the rest, that have now been revealed, on which we are to have a statement in a few minutes?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On that aspect, the hon. Gentleman will have to await the statement later this afternoon. The wider question has been the subject of debate in the House on a number of occasions over the years. It remains open to the Opposition to select one of their own days for debating that issue.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week to consider giving the House an opportunity to debate sentencing policy? Is he aware that my constituent, Mrs. Noone, was brutally murdered last year and the man accused of her murder recently committed suicide, unfortunately before he could be brought to trial. Is he further aware that the man accused of the crime had previously been sentenced to life which, in practice, turned out to be 12 years? Does not this unhappy incident eloquently and strongly put the case that a life sentence should mean just that—life.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend understandably draws the attention of the House to the particular case with which he is rightly concerned. I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is considering the preparation of a White Paper dealing with such matters and will be making a statement about it shortly.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am sure that the Leader of the House and the House will be aware that the Sealink ship, the St. Columba, was badly damaged by fire in the Irish sea yesterday. The emergency services undertook excellent work; of the 294 people on board, only one received minor injuries. Will he and the House join me in thanking the emergency services which included the coastguards, the fire service, the RAF at Valley, the social services department, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, trauma counsellors, the Samaritans, police and all the others who worked so hard to minimise the injuries? He will also be aware that Sealink is conducting its own inquiry to discover the cause of the fire. Will he assure us that, if necessary, the Department of Transport will also undertake an inquiry to find out whether regulations need to be tightened to prevent such incidents? Will he pass on that message, and the congratulations of the House on the work done by the emergency services, to the appropriate Secretary of State?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the whole House would wish me to join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our appreciation of the work carried out by the emergency services which he identified so comprehensively. I shall bring the other matter that he raised to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. There are virtually routine arrangements to ensure that such matters are considered as a matter of course.
Mr. John Bowls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend have another look at the possibility of a debate on the traffic and transport options for London, preferably this week but certainly before the end of this month? That will enable hon. Members to contribute to the consultative process and guide my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport along the paths of
444
righteousness, which happen to be public transport paths not the publicly unwanted and environmentally damaging route of new highways.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is assiduous in drawing attention to the importance of this issue to his constituents. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is equally assiduous in his preparation of a balanced policy to address the issue.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the terms of reference of the Calcutt inquiry and in a form that allows us to move amendments so that we can ensure that the inquiry investigates why it was that when Colin Wallace drew the attention of child abuse in Kincora to the attention of his superior in 1974 no action was taken and six further years of child abuse ensued? That inquiry should also investigate the links between the late Airey Neave—in writing—with Colin Wallace, commissioning work from Colin Wallace to continue his disinformation activities. It should also investigate the information passed by Airey Neave to Peter Wright, in Peter Wright's capacity as an MI5 officer, about figures in public life. It should investigate the meeting held between Peter Wright and the late Airey Neave in the period immediately before the decision of Airey Neave to offer his campaign services to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). It should investigate the meeting that took place in the Cumberland hotel a week before the murder of Airey Neave, when Airey Neave sought to recruit a former officer of MI6 to set up a small group to involve itself in the internal struggles of the Labour party.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that the House will have any enthusiasm for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has sought, through an extended intervention, to make as many allegations as possible, and many of them against a late and respected Member of this House. The matters upon which he touched have been largely the subject of fully conducted investigations, including two full reports on the allegations in respect of the Kincora boys' home. There is no case to make any special arrangements in relation to that matter.
Mr. Cecil Franks: My question has no association with the question asked by the hon.Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the remarkable similarities and parallels between the Colin Wallace case and the Stalker affair? Does he accept that in the view of many, one reason why Mr. Stalker was removed from his inquiry was that he had blundered, or was about to blunder, into the circumstances concerning the Colin Wallace case?
In those circumstances, and bearing in mind that throughout the whole of Northern Ireland questions, Prime Minister's questions and business questions there were numerous requests for various debates on various matters related either to the Colin Wallace or to the Stalker affairs, will my right hon. and learned Friend give consideration to an early debate at a suitable and convenient time?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Obviously, I give consideration to any request made to me in the House. However, as I already said, all those matters have been the subject of full investigation in a whole range of different forums. There

445
will be further opportunities to put the points raised to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence later this afternoon.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must now move on. I will ensure that those hon. Members who have not been called during business questions are called early next Thursday.

Mr. Colin Wallace
4.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace.
In a written answer on Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that records had been found that brought to light information of material significance to the case of Mr. Wallace. Because those records had been overlooked, some misleading information had unwittingly been given to Members of this House by Ministers.
As regards Mr. Wallace's employment in the Civil Service, the papers revealed no evidence that the decision to terminate it in 1975 was taken for reasons other than the offence with which he was charged—namely, disclosing classified information to the media without proper authority and at a time when he had already relinquished his post at Headquarters Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, in the light of the new information about his duties that has now come to light, the Government have decided to ask Mr. David Calcutt QC to examine the papers relating to Mr. Wallace's case so that he can consider whether its presentation to the Civil Service Appeal Board may have resulted in any injustices to Mr. Wallace, and if so whether compensation should be paid.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in a long written answer in Hansard on 30 January at column 110 set out the position that has now emerged over Mr. Wallace's case. He set out also the distinct issues as they emerge from a special re-examination of departmental records by senior officials. That re-examination showed, first, that papers previously overlooked showed that their earlier statements and letters needed to be corrected. The Government have therefore come to the House on this matter as early as possible and an inquiry is in hand within my Department into how the papers were overlooked.
Secondly, the re-examination showed that the newly found information raised a question mark over the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case to the Civil Service Appeal Board, and Mr. Calcutt will review those matters.
Thirdly, it showed that no information has been found to substantiate Mr. Wallace's allegations of a cover-up relating to the Kincora boys' home in Belfast, or to call in question the thoroughness of the major inquiries already made into that affair, including those of Sir George Terry and Judge Hughes.
Fourthly, it showed that no information was found to call into question Mr. Wallace's conviction for manslaughter, on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary advised the House on Tuesday.
Fifthly, it showed that none of it calls into question the conclusion stated to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6 May 1987, following a special report to her by the director-general of the Security Service, that there is no evidence to support suggestions of attempts to undermine or discredit Ministers or former Ministers.
My statement follows the detailed answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the published letters to right hon. and hon. Members to whom the previous incorrect answers were given. In

447
their actions, which relate to events some 15 years ago and to the Administrations of that time, the Government have sought to respond promptly and candidly to meet the responsibilities that fall to them as a result of the new information, and in particular to tackle the question of possible injustice to Mr. Wallace in his Civil Service appeal.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for coming to the House to make that statement, because a written answer, no matter how long, is a poor substitute for an opportunity to put questions on an issue of such importance—especially when so many right hon. and hon. Members have been besmirched by the dirty tricks campaign, and when the very democracy that the House represents has been subject to subversion.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that all Governments in the early 1970s were subject to such attacks? Why is it that it is only now, 11 years after the election of the present Government, that the information has come to light? Can the right hon. Gentleman be more explicit as to how it became available? Will he say who was responsible for granting permission to Colin Wallace to dispose of the documents? Are any of the people engaged in those activities still working in the MOD, and in positions of responsibility?
Does the Secretary of State not concede that the Kincora inquiries were hampered in the past by Mr. Wallace's refusal to give evidence unless guaranteed immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act? Will he consider that part of his statement, now that Mr. Wallace's status has been changed?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the latest revelations show that the questions asked over the years by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House were not the product of bizarre conspiracy theories but had substance in fact, and that what were once considered rumours are now accepted as facts? Does he agree also that the nature and scale of the allegations go far beyond the Ministry of Defence and that the inquiry announced today will be hampered by Mr. Calcutt's own admission that he can neither compel witnesses to testify nor afford protection for witnesses and their immunity from prosecution?
Does the Secretary of State not accept that an internal inquiry by the MOD, with no guarantee that its findings will be published or made available to the House, will fail to satisfy the House? Does he not recognise that the Attorney-General, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister herself are all involved, and that the House demands a wider and deeper inquiry than that offered today?
If the House is to clear its name, and if those who have been besmirched in the past are to keep their heads held high, the House has a responsibility to provide the means whereby the fullest and fairest inquiry can be held.
Mr. King: I would not have thought from the contribution of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that my statement included the information that we have made full investigations and that we were concerned as to whether the whole truth had been given. I have reported to the House—y hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—the outcome of those inquiries, which we took very seriously.
448
We are concerned that an injustice may have been done to Mr. Colin Wallace in respect of his handling by the Civil Service Appeal Board. We are anxious that justice should be done. I am concerned that at no time did the hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that we volunteered the information. We sought to bring the information before the House and to ensure that justice is done. Although the hon. Gentleman has sought to widen the matter into a broader range of innuendo and allegation, I have absolute confidence—as will anyone who knows him—that Mr. Calcutt will seek to discharge his responsibilities in a thorough way, and certainly will not turn aside if he is not able to do it within the terms of reference that he has been given. We are certainly anxious to ensure that Mr. Calcutt's conclusions are published.
Mr. Ian Gow: If the Government are engaged in a cover-up, why did my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces give that detailed answer in the Official Report on Tuesday? Is it not wholly inconsistent with the allegations of a cover-up that that answer was given in the Official Report and this statement is being made today?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as that is precisely the point. We found that there were errors. We were not responding to any direct inquiry but to concern in the Ministry of Defence about matters that were being raised to see whether the information was correct. We had to refer to documents that are 15 years old which were found to be relevant.
A further extremely thorough investigation was made by a senior civil servant. As soon as the matter was brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, he gave immediate instructions that all documents were to be examined to see whether any further information that might have been overlooked had come to light.
No further information was found, but I should make it absolutely clear to the House that we shall take every step necessary to ensure that any information is brought to the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the firm way in which he has recognised that.
Sir David Steel: May I first acknowledge that the Secretary of State is concerned about possible injustice to Mr. Colin Wallace? But what about the injustice to the rest of us whose names have appeared on these blacklists? Is the Secretary of State aware that it is highly significant that in 1974 among the names on the blacklist were those of a former leader of my party, the then leader in the House of Lords, the late Lord Byers, myself as Chief Whip and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith)? The reason was that in 1974, between the two elections, the parliamentary Liberal party was pivotal to the parliamentary arithmetic. There could be no other reason.
Therefore, the Secretary of State must recognise that the only possible reason for the inclusion of our names was a direct attempt to interfere with the processes of parliamentary democracy. For that reason, he and the Prime Minister should recognise that it is no disrespect to them to say that it has gone beyond a matter just for Ministers; it is a matter for the House of Commons and a senior committee of Privy Councillors should be set up to inquire into it.
Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman is addressing issues about which I have no direct information—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. King: All I do know is that the matters were specifically investigated, first, by the right hon. Lord Callaghan, the previous Prime Minister, who made a statement to the House, and then by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who asked the director-general of the Security Service to investigate the matter. The director-general advised her, as she said in her statement in 1987, that there was no evidence of any truth in the allegations.
The right hon. Gentleman talks very glibly about blacklists. I have been on more blacklists in Northern Ireland than I care to count. The authors of some of those blacklists are proscribed organisations in any case. If the right hon. Gentleman has evidence that somehow the Government service was involved in those blacklists, he should bring that evidence forward. He certainly has not been able to impress the director-general of the Security Service.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Secretary of State explain to us how anybody can be satisfied that this dirty tricks department is not still in operation when, at the Dispatch Box over and over again, Ministers are—giving them the benefit of the doubt—to the best of their knowledge, denying that it ever existed? How can we, without a full public, sworn inquiry, be satisfied that this matter is not continuing?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will have seen Hansard and will know that my hon. Friend made it very clear—I think that it was made clear also by the right hon. Gentleman—that when this matter came to his attention the policy was changed. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman certainly from my own experience that there is no question of such a policy being pursued.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State fully understand that our criticism is not directed at the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Defence, the Army or the earlier Labour Government? I cannot quite understand, then, why the Government should feel the need to be on the defensive.
Does the Secretary of State not accept that all those named ought to have their integrity confirmed by an investigation much wider than anything that has so far been proposed?
In defence of the late Airey Neave, is the Secretary of State really aware of the need to identify that element in what I call the governmental machine that guided the black propaganda and has guided it for a good many years and which may have been the same element that warned the late Airey Neave, in the very week of his murder, that he would not be permitted to carry out Conservative policies?
Mr. King: I find it very distressing to hear continual references to a former, much-respected colleague, a man who has now been dead for 10 years and who is not, sadly, able to speak up and answer some of the points and comments that are made. I know nothing about the points that have been made.
Now, for the second time, we have these allegations about lots of names. I do not know what lists they were on
450
—[Interruption.]—or what the authorship of the lists might be. I know very well, from my own experience, that there are organisations on both sides of the terrorist paramilitary extreme who are very good at producing lists and at black propaganda of that kind. If the right hon. Gentleman has evidence, he should produce it. Quite clearly, it was not evidence that impressed the director-general of the Security Services or the previous Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, after seven years of detailed inquiries affecting my constituent Mr. Colin Wallace, I naturally warmly welcome the Government's initiative of the Calcutt inquiry? I look forward to hearing the outcome of that inquiry.
Will my right hon. Friend also reflect on two problems that have emerged in the past seven years? The first is the genuine difficulty of looking into security matters, particularly matters reflecting on a previous Administration, when conventions make it difficult for Ministers, let alone a Back Bencher, to establish facts.
Secondly, with regard to the inquiry into mishandling of documents, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred, will my right hon. Friend accept that when I came to see Ministers in his Department in 1986, one of my concerns was about the then problem of six missing files referred to by my constituent? Will he therefore please ensure that in the inquiry these matters, and not just the documents referred to by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, are looked at in the widest sense?
Mr. King: It is precisely because of the seriousness that we attach to this matter that both my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I have made the statements that we have—my hon. Friend in the answer that he gave on Tuesday and I here today. Exactly the same thoroughness as has marked this investigation will be carried over, under our very specific instructions, into the question of how this matter occurred and the handling of documents of this kind. I take note of what my hon. Friend says about the other files, and I will certainly look at that matter.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I refer the Secretary of State to the answer that was given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces a couple of days ago? The first paragraph states:
"Ministers have not, of course, been told what advice was given to former Labour Ministers, nor what views they expressed, with the exception of … the then Attorney-General."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 40, c. 110.]
May I fill in that gap? What happened was this: I did not know that Mr. Colin Wallace existed. I was never informed that he would be given wide discretion to give documents of high classification—higher than senior civil servants in my own Department—and that he could use them for briefing purposes in all parts of the Province. I did not know that.
The first that I heard, in February 1975, was someone coming into Stormont house and saying that a document had been dropped in the door of a Times journalist, and it happened that the lady who looked after the house was the wife of a policeman. She had seen the classification and took the document to the police station. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is the question?"] Well, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Merlyn Rees.
Mr. Rees: This document was found, and as a result the police took it in hand. The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) asked a question in the House, and I recall the answer was that it was a matter for the police.
After that, the Attorney-General, and I am referring to the document, consulted us—my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) will recall this—and said to me, as he was bound to, was this a matter for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act? My view was no, that the document was not important enough, and no prosecution took place.
I say to the Secretary of State, what a position! Here was a high officer of state, an Attorney-General, considering whether to prosecute, but somebody else had given the man permission to use these documents without telling the Ministers of the day. That is the situation that we are investigating.
The question is—I will ask the Secretary of State, who has the great advantage of knowing Northern Ireland—who gave this authorisation?
The documents that the Prime Minister's office—I believe that it may have been the Minister of Defence—gave the Library, give evidence that was given by Peter Broderick, the chief information officer, at the time of the inquiry into Wallace, when he lost his job. I am astonished. How much more does one not know? It says that Mr. Wallace was
"The advisor on Irish matters to the whole Headquarters"—
he might have been a bit of use in the Northern Ireland Office, perhaps—
"In order to do his job he had constant and free access" —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is a very important matter. The right hon. Gentleman was intimately involved at the time, but he must bear in mind the fact that other hon. Members wish to ask questions.
Mr. Rees: Is it correct—it needs to be looked at—what Mr. Broderick says:
"I was instructed by my Generals there to use public relations and information policy techniques in direct support of their military objectives"?
In the same statement, it says, "We knew better than
Whitehall"
This was a small group not of intelligence officers but the information staff, with Army intelligence, which includes the replies that we have had, taking over the job of the elected Minister of the day. I believe that this ought to be investigated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Some Tory Members might not like this, but our names have been impugned. Some of them—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House appreciates what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He was involved in these matters, and it is right that we should hear him.
Mr. Rees: In the reply that came, the Prime Minister refers to the inquiry into the security services carried out by the noble Lord Callaghan and myself. The Prime Minister does not know what was in it, but that has not prevented her ever since from saying that everything was covered.
I make it abundantly clear that these dirty tricks in Northern Ireland were not covered in that inquiry. I am
452
the only one who knows; the Secretary of State cannot deny it. I simply say that this will not go away. There is no hiding place. The next Labour Government will look at it, and those who are hiding things for this Government had better remember that.
Mr. King: The House has listened with respect to the right hon. Gentleman's recounting of events when he was in office and his personal recollections of those matters. He will recall—because he referred to the Minister of State's written answer and the question of who authorised these activities—that one point that is uncertain at the present time is whether Mr. Wallace was ever given this specific job.
The written answer—the House will have read it—stated that the case for establishing the post, when it was considered that an additional information officer was needed in Northern Ireland, included the suggestion that this was the sort of work that he should do. There is no information or documentary evidence indicating that he may have been given the specification orally. There is no evidence whether it was actually authorised.
It is also stated in the written answer that, even before he was appointed to the post, whether or not he was briefed orally.
"it would appear that he had already been undertaking unattributable briefing activities of this kind, which may have included disinformation".—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, column 111.]
The point that the right hon. Gentleman missed about the activities of Mr. Wallace was that the date on which the document was lodged was after Mr. Wallace had relinquished his post in Headquarters Northern Ireland.
Mr. Bob Cryer: One day after.
Mr. King: That is the fact in this matter, so in relation to the question about his authority, he had no authority after the post had been relinquished. I do not wish to say anything further about that, because those are matters which are very much in the area that Mr. Calcutt must now judge and which arise under the question of the handling of Mr. Wallace's employment and the question of his appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House will have understood why a dispensation should have been given to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was Secretary of State at the time. But I now ask hon. Members to put their questions succinctly so that as many as possible may be called.
Mr. Michael Mates: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, while the House always listens with respect to the sincerity with which the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) puts his view, and from his experience as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the matters which he was relating to the House relate solely to Mr. Wallace's job in Headquarters Northern Ireland, which was to do with a campaign against terrorists and paramilitaries of both sides and was nothing whatever to do with the wild and so far unsubstantiated allegations of any dirty tricks against any Ministers of any Government?
In that my right hon. Friend has instituted an inquiry into the Wallace affair, vis-a-vis his job, there is no

453
evidence that there was subversion, and until anybody can produce proper evidence, there is no need to have an inquiry.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Anybody who has any memory of the circumstances will agree that while we can sit in judgment now in relation to certain activities that took place—and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) knows this better than anybody—it was a time of great danger and of great casualties, something like 10 times the current level of casualties. It was a time when there were certain practices; the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South made clear his view about them and I fully endorse what he said about the unacceptability of some of the practices that occurred at that time.
But I am dealing in my answer with one specific matter. We have found that an error has been made. We have come straight to the House to make the position clear and to make clear the action that we shall take. There have been attempts to reopen a whole lot of other issues that have been dealt with separately and specifically, in one case by two major inquiries, headed by a distinguished chief constable and a distinguished judge. I am dealing with matters that have come to light, and we wish to see that if an injustice has occurred, that injustice is remedied.
Mr. Stanley Orme: I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has said, because I took part in those discussions. This afternoon, the Secretary of State has made out the case for a full judicial inquiry. He says that he does not know what went on under the previous Administration and that he does not know anything about the smearing not only of Labour Members, but of Conservatives and Liberals. He has raised an objection at the name of Mr. Airey Neave being mentioned, but what about those of us who have also been mentioned and smeared? In the House, we have a right for the matter to be examined in an independent way.
I do not accept everything that Mr. Wallace has said. He is a gamekeeper turned poacher and he has played some dirty tricks in his time—I understand that. However, we now believe that there should be an inquiry, and I am sure that the House agrees. It is up to the Prime Minister, as head of security, to set up that inquiry and until such an inquiry is set up, we shall not let the matter rest.
Mr. King: Fifteen years on, we hear these allegations about the besmirching of reputations. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these matters have been investigated twice. There is no evidence of attempts to undermine Ministers or former Ministers—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. King: I have come to the House to report on a matter on which there is evidence and in which we are clear that a mistake has been made. We are anxious to remedy that, and any ill consequences that may have flowed from it, at the earliest possible opportunity. People jumping up and down one after the other—and I could join the club —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the people jumping up and down alleging that they have evidence do have evidence, they should produce it so that the matter can be investigated properly.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we congratulate him on his candour on coming to the House? All Conservative Members are aware that these matters originated under another Administration and that present Ministers have no responsibility for what happened then. Can he confirm that the Government's statements during the past few days have been checked, confirmed and agreed by hon. Members who served as Ministers under the former Labour Administration?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; that is what we have sought to do. Having found that mistakes have been made, we came to tell the House frankly of them. I have dealt very directly with those issues, and with the action that we are taking to deal with the consequences and to try to ensure that it does not happen again.
In response to my hon. Friend's question, the statements were not shown to hon. Members who had served as Ministers, but the details of the contents of the statements were communicated to Lord Mason, Lord Carrington, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and Lord Whitelaw.
Mr. Tony Benn: I am sorry that the patience of the Secretary of State is exhausted, but these are important matters. Is he aware that the real anxiety being expressed is that the security services are not under political control? He has said that he has no knowledge of the earlier years, although many of the offences occurred in the 1970s, with two Administrations. By admitting that she was misinformed, the Prime Minister has also said that she was unable, as Prime Minister, to get the truth out of the services for which she is supposed to be responsible to Parliament.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's recent legislation now makes it a crime for Mr. Colin Wallace to give the evidence that would prove that the smearing had occurred? Is he also aware that the vast sum spent in trying to prevent the publication of "Spycatcher" did not show a yearning that the truth should reach the British public?
Is not all this combined to very strong evidence in support of a parliamentary inquiry at which Mr. Wallace, and perhaps Peter Wright and others who are certain that destabilisation occurred, could be rigorously cross-examined by hon. Members from across the House? Will the Secretary of State take seriously our anxiety that a breach of democratic responsibility has been committed by those who purport to be the defenders of our democratic rights?
Mr. King: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I am advised that, as usual, he has got it mainly wrong. I am told that the idea that Mr. Wallace makes himself liable to prosecution does not apply, as he has never been a member of the security services. It has been made very clear,—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who from?"]—as I think the House knows, that this is an area where endless allegations are made. There is an amazing unwillingness to produce evidence that can be tested and checked.
If Mr. Wallace wants to make charges or has evidence on matters arising in Northern Ireland, he should bring it to the RUC. If he has any worries about his position in doing so in relation to classified information, it has been

455
made clear time without number that he should address himself to the director of army security, who will advise him about the position.
Mr. David Tredinnick: I speak as one who served with the Army in Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that 300 terrorist murders per annum were taking place at the time, the Army was absolutely justified in using disinformation? Does he further agree that the Army would have been negligent had it not used disinformation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is it not a fact that had the Army not used these techniques to undermine terrorism, many more British soldiers and civilians would be dead today?
Mr. King: I understand entirely why my hon. Friend comments as he does. There were practices of using disinformation to malign organisations and individuals. When my hon. Friend says that the Army is entitled to use disinformation, that is certainly true. Disinformation may be necessary to protect lives and security.
If hon. Members do not understand what I mean, I will give the House the most obvious and simple example. I arrived back this morning from Washington. I travelled under a false name. I make no apology for that. It was deliberate disinformation; it was done in the interests of security. The position is that disinformation may be needed to protect lives in Northern Ireland. I make no apology for that.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Should we not remind ourselves that the term "misinformation" is a euphemism for telling lies, that Mr. Colin Wallace was employed by a Government to tell lies, and that indeed he was a very squalid part of a very squalid operation in the North of Ireland at that time? There will be no tears shed in the North of Ireland about the manner of his dismissal.
The real issue at stake involves the characters and the reputations of those who were besmirched by people like Colin Wallace, those who may have lost their lives as a result of the activities of a dirty tricks department, those young lives that were blighted because of organised buggery which may have been part of the same campaign and, above all, the integrity and the highest practices which one expects from a system of law and security which simply did not seem to operate there at the time.
Will the Secretary of State agree to a full inquiry into those real matters, or will he consign this as another can of worms upon which the lid must be kept, instead of laying bare the facts which nobody doubts?
Mr. King: If I have heard him right, the hon. Gentleman is, in effect, asking for what would arguably be the third, fourth or fifth inquiry into Kincora. What presumption is there that that would establish anything different?
I have come to make a statement about certain information that was overlooked in the Ministry of Defence. I made it clear in that statement that the re-examination indicated that no information had been found to substantiate Mr. Wallace's allegations of a cover-up relating to the Kincora boys' home in Belfast. If new, fresh evidence emerges from another quarter, that evidence should be made available. If Mr. Wallace wishes to present any evidence, as he has been asked to do countless times, he should do so. What is absolutely
456
unacceptable is for people to continue to call for inquiries, and to continue to indulge in innuendo, without producing any evidence on which the charges can be based.
Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. Friend clarify two points? If I understand his statement and the deduction that has followed it, it is perfectly appropriate and right to use disinformation to protect ordinary military operations; otherwise we would be running one after another into an ambush. Did I also understand my right hon. Friend to say that no evidence has come to light of attempts by agents of the Government to besmirch particular individuals in the way that has been suggested? If that is so, it too is important.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making his first point, about disinformation. That is precisely the point. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in his statement,
"It has not since the mid-1970s been the policy to disseminate disinformation in Northern Ireland in ways designed to denigrate individuals and/or organisations or for propaganda purposes."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 111.]
I did not say that it has not been the practice to use disinformation where it is necessary to protect lives, and for sound and absolutely honourable security reasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has understood that point very well.
As for my right hon. Friend's second question, I sought to make a point about the allegations that the security services were somehow involved in attempts to undermine or discredit Ministers in previous Administrations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made a statement about that, and the director-general was asked to conduct a thorough investigation. He found no evidence of any truth in the allegations.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the inquiry deal with the question whether Colin Wallace had a written job description classified "secret", relating to his undercover operations? If it were possible to establish the existence of a job description in one form or another, would the inquiry be able to examine the nature of the activities involved?
Will the inquiry also be able to establish the source of a document dated 1972—a CIA registration card—and that of a forged bank statement in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), dated 1973? I might add that there was not a Labour Government in either of those years. Will it establish the source of a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley arid Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) dated 3 October 1971, from some American organisation of IRA sympathisers, thanking my right hon. Friend for money that he had never sent/again, a forgery?
Will the inquiry deal with a document dated autumn 1971—again, a Labour Government were not in power then—entitled "Economics: Master or Servant of Mankind"? The document was allegedly written—although we know that it is a forgery—by my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). Those forgeries were produced between 1971 and 1973, and we want to know who produced them.
Mr. Mates: You tell us.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the inquiry deal with a document entitled "Vote Labour", which advocates assassination, but which is a forgery and has nothing whatever to do with Labour? We want to know the source of that document. Will it deal with a speech that was allegedly made, but was never made, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East—to a Labour party conference that never took place? Who wrote this material? We want to know, and if the inquiry does not deal with these matters, it will be a whitewash.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knew the answer to his question before he rose to his feet. He has indulged once again his interest in parading all kinds of rumour and innuendo. [HON. MEMBERS: "You asked for evidence."] The House has no idea of the evidence of authorship of those documents.
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's first question, about the job description. Let me make it clear—this is what I have come to speak to the House about—that I would expect it to be for Mr. Calcutt to make the decision, within his terms of reference. I have absolute confidence in Mr. Calcutt: I am confident that he will seek to discharge his terms of reference to the full, and will take into account any relevant matter. The other matters certainly do not fall within his inquiry.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend said that he had no direct information about some of the wider constitutional security matters in and around the Wallace affair. He is aware that some of us feel that that is the fundamental flaw in his statement, and in the terms of the inquiry that he has announced.
This is not merely a narrow Ministry of Defence matter relating exclusively to a Civil Service appeal to do with Mr. Colin Wallace, important though that is. There are new issues here. In the past few days the Prime Minister has announced to the House that she was misled by Government servants, and even this afternoon we have heard disclosures of apparently wrongful and unauthorised use of disinformation by members of the Security Service, without satisfactory checks and balance and ministerial authorisation.
I think that my right hon. Friend should take account of the feeling in the House that there are wider and deeper issues that need to be identified by a wider and deeper inquiry. The matter will not go away as quickly as some people hope, and I think that, sooner or later, a fuller inquiry will have to be carried out by the head of the security services.
Mr. King: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about open government and less secrecy. I am sorry that he was not able to acknowledge the fact that, having discovered that an error had been made, we have come straight to the House. I thought that he would feel able to applaud that.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clear up one aspect of what I said. Of course I am not privy to and familiar with the details of what the director-general of the Security Service may have found out about activities that took place during a Labour Administration, to which I do not have access. [Interruption.] I am talking now about attempts to subvert
458
a Labour Government and the allegations that were made about the discrediting and the actions of Ministers at that time. I obviously do not have access to that information.
What I do have access to are the findings of the director-general of the Security Service, with which I have no reason to disagree. I share the view of the Prime Minister. She made it clear in her statement that she accepted fully the assurance and advice that the director-general had given her, and I am sure that the House will do the same.
Mr. Peter Archer: But has the right hon. Gentleman not yet grasped that the misleading answers to which the Government have now admitted are like the 13th stroke of the clock, casting doubt not only on themselves but on all the other answers that have been given about the matter over the years? If it is only now that someone has troubled to search the files, how can it be known what other documents are lying there undetected, and how can the public have confidence in anything less than a full public inquiry?
Mr. King: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may choose to see this as the 13th stroke of the clock, but I have no evidence of that whatever. I have made matters absolutely clear in my statement. On the specific question of the job specification, we have found that—to put it simply—there are concerns that the appeal may not have proceeded on the fullest evidence available to it. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I have made it clear that, as a result of previous information that was incorrect, misleading answers may have been given. That is precisely why we advised the Prime Minister, who has written letters on the same matter on our advice, that it was necessary to correct the incorrect advice that she had been given by myself and by Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. We sought to make that absolutely clear. But in my statement I made it clear also that people who imagine that there are all sorts of other implications in this error of overlooking certain documents are wrong. That simply does not stand up.
Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House should at least take into account the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) was able to pursue his inquiries, which gave rise to the response of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces; the fact that my right hon. Friend came here to make this statement and to answer questions on it; and the fact that we have a system under which the accountability of the Government to this House is avidly pursued, even at prime ministerial level? No other Government or, indeed, democracy in the western world would allow this degree of public examination of its policies. Perhaps Opposition Members would like nothing better than an expose of the security system that would undermine fatally the capacity of this democracy to fight terrorism.
Mr. King: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the very eloquent and perfectly fair way in which he has stated precisely the issue that is before us. It is quite ironic that, when I come to the House to apologise for an error and to set out the actions that we intend to take to put it right, I should be told by some hon. Members that that will not do. It is a very odd approach indeed.
Mr. John Hume: The Secretary of State admitted a few moments ago that, before the mid-1970s, there was a policy of denigrating individuals by disinformation. Can he tell the House on what information he bases that statement? Who were the people who were denigrated, and on the basis of what disinformation were they denigrated?
Mr. King: In my statement I referred to the answer that had been given by my hon. Friend. I have made it clear that his statement and his answers were based on a further examination of files—an examination which identified the case being made for the establishment of a new post whose job specification included these requirements. The hon. Gentleman has seen the answers. Further evidence on what form that took, and whether it was ever communicated to Mr. Wallace, is not clear. As for what has now happened to Mr. Wallace's position, I have no doubt that Mr. Calcutt will wish to pursue such matters.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this House and outside he enjoys widespread confidence for the integrity and thoroughness with which this inquiry will he conducted? Will he be reluctant to concede to arguments that the scope of the inquiry should be increased? Perhaps he would care to say what credibility we ought to attach to the allegations of dirty tricks and to the besmirching of Members of this House by a man who was convicted of and imprisoned for the particularly horrific manslaughter of the antique dealer Mr. Jonathan Lewis. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves not about the integrity of the Prime Minister and other Ministers reporting to this House but about the system by which this Walter Mitty character had such access to highly classified documents.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has stated very clearly another aspect of this very difficult saga. With hindsight, there is no doubt that one is entitled to ask how some of these things arose and how some of the people concerned could be involved in such matters. It is easy, 15 years after the event, for people who were not involved to judge. We certainly have a duty to take whatever steps we can to ensure that if, in the areas that I have described, errors were made and disinformation was overlooked, the situation is rectified. No matter what view we hold, Mr. Wallace is entitled to fair treatment. If we think that there is a risk that he did not receive justice, we have a duty to have the matter investigated.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What circumstances induced Sir Michael Quinlan, as far back as last June, to advise the Secretary of State that he should have an inquiry into Colin Wallace?
Mr. King: The hon. Member talks about an inquiry into the information and into any documents that were available, which were the source—
Mr. Dalyell: He is the Secretary of State's Permanent Secretary.
Mr. King: I am actually aware who my Permanent Secretary is.
In that situation, there was concern over whether, in respect of a number of issues that had been raised, the fullest investigation had been made. Authority was
460
therefore given, and the matter was raised with Ministers—immediately confirmed—to investigate whether any files were missing.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House, when they first heard of the allegations made by Colin Wallace, were inclined to dismiss him as a Walter Mitty figure? Will my right hon. Friend accept that what has changed the situation this week is the confirmation that there were in the Ministry of Defence documents concerning an operation—perhaps not cleared, perhaps a renegade operation—code—named "Clockwork Orange"? Is not that the single item has justified some of the anxiety that has been expressed in the past?
Are there not precedents, in the shape of similar inquiries being passed straight to the Security Commission? Will my hon. Friend consider very carefully whether this is not an ideal matter for the Security Commission to look into? After all, if the Government have nothing to hide, surely it would be to their advantage to take that step.
Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows that what he referred to, particularly in relation to "Clockwork Orange" was referred to in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. While descriptions have been given of what the project might have been like, and the suggestion made that Mr. Wallace was involved in the project, the documents make it absolutely clear that the project was not actually cleared. I think that this is where some ideas start off—whatever Mr. Wallace may have been involved in, and the ideas that he had—but we are dealing with the facts, with what actually happened.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the Secretary of State—first of all, as people read Hansard—realise that it demeans his office to pretend that the disinformation about which we are speaking is that which requires him to travel under an assumed name? We are speaking of much more serious matters.
Secondly, how can the right hon. Gentleman come to this House and repeat such phrases as "documents were overlooked" and "inadvertently misleading the House" and then proceed, in a stout defence, to resist any possible inquiry, on the grounds that there is no such information? Is he aware that his incapacity to understand the serious nature of the breach of rules—or whatever it was—by the Security Service is exactly the kind of defence used by the security services in eastern Europe? He ought to be ashamed of himself for taking that sort of position.
Mr. King: I have come here to explain certain events that occurred at a time when there were in office a Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a supporter. I do not make any point about this, because it affected different Administrations at that time. I make no apology for coming to the House in these circumstances. It is disgraceful for the hon. Gentleman to say that I should be ashamed of myself when I have come to explain that mistakes were made, and to state what action we are taking to correct them.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: While applauding the Secretary of State for his courage in making what would obviously be a very embarrassing statement for any Minister to make, may I ask whether he accepts that he has

461
a very special responsibility to those whose reputation may have been gravely undermined by the activities of Mr. Wallace and his colleagues?
Can my right hon. Friend clarify in what circumstances he might think there was a case for a further inquiry? Would it, for example, be if we had evidence that all the documents referred to by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and other frauds and forgeries alleged by Mr. Wallace to be the product of his particular group had been supplied to the Government in 1984?
Mr. King: I am obviously grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said at the beginning. On this matter, we have sought to be quite frank with the House. Various allegations have been made. If there is evidence to substantiate the allegations about a whole range of matters, it should be brought forward. People might then like to explain why it had taken 15 years to do so.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I address a number of specific points to the Secretary of State? He has referred on two or three occasions to mistakes having been made in the past, and he has twice repeated that errors have been made in overlooking information. The only significance of the new information is that it suggests that Mr. Wallace may well have been telling the truth in this particular.
The argument that we are seeking to put to the Secretary of State and to get him to accept is that, if there is evidence that Mr. Wallace has been telling the truth in this particular, there may well be validity in his general arguments and points. Therefore, for that reason if no other, there is a need for a far wider-scale inquiry than is being proposed at present. The Secretary of State must know that the piddling little inquiry that he has set up is to determine whether Mr. Wallace was fairly or unfairly dismissed in the light of the new evidence—but that just will not do.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman totally overlooks the fact that that was one of the specific matters raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) when he called for an inquiry. In fact, the hon. Gentleman was actually calling for the fifth or sixth inquiry. In answer to the idea that these matters have not been inquired into when they have been a matter of specific inquiry, there is absolutely no evidence that a further inquiry would produce anything different from the previous inquiries. It is simply no good for people to make and to keep on making allegations, which is certainly true of Mr. Wallace over the Kincora matter, and yet refuse to bring forward evidence on it.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep resentment among my hon. Friends at the attempt by some Opposition Members to smear members of this Administration about things that happened long before any Minister in this Government came to power? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) were to put before members of the Government the documents of which only he and Lord Callaghan have direct knowledge, they would be looked into, and that it is no use the right hon. Gentleman accusing this
462
Government of not knowing what they are talking about, when the information has not been put to the Government?
Mr. King: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says. If there is evidence, it should be brought forward and put before the appropriate authorities. I find it difficult, standing here, to understand why that has not been done.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Under the Government's own definition of "subversion", which includes undermining parliamentary democracy, were these dirty tricks that were aimed at politicians "subversion"? Will the Secretary of State answer that point? Is it not becoming increasingly clear that there was political meddling on behalf of a small faction in the security services to achieve a Right-wing putsch in this country, and that it was successful? When are we going to get the truth about that?
Mr. King: I am making a statement about somebody who was a member of the information service in the headquarters in Northen Ireland, and attached to the Army. That is the matter with which I am dealing. Some of the allegations that have been made previously have been fully investigated, and separate statements have been made to the House. Some of the allegations have been subject to quite separate and very full inquiries. I have nothing to add on those. I have made a specific statement about the action that we are taking in respect of one specific matter.
Mr. Edward Leigh: If it is established beyond peradventure that there is no shred of evidence to suggest that there was a campaign to discredit Ministers at the time, is not the only logical conclusion that those who call for further inquiries are, either consciously or unconsciously, seeking to attack the credibility of our security services, which at the time were facing a campaign that caused the death of 300 people, or that they have no confidence in Ministers of the time?
Mr. King: Listening to some of the contributions that have been made, I well understand why my hon. Friend makes that comment. I am under no illusions that one or two contributors to this debate are very keen to undermine —[Interruption.]—the confidence in the security services, and they have made that perfectly clear—
Ms. Clare Short: Name them.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir David Steel) and other right hon. and hon. Members were seeking to aid and abet the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland by raising the questions that they have?
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear. I am sure that the Secretary of State did not intend that.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Dr. John Cunningham: May I invite the Secretary of State, on reflection, to withdraw the remark that he has just made, which I am sure, on reconsideration, he would want to withdraw? It cannot possibly be his view that my right hon. and hon. Friends who have served, as he did, with great distinction in Northern Ireland, could

463
possibly justify or deserve the comments that he has just made, and on behalf of my other hon. Friends, I certainly repudiate them.
Mr. King: I made it absolutely clear—if the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that I said "one or two"—[Interruption.]
Hon. Members: Name them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the Secretary of State that even that is a reflection upon the honour of hon. Members?
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. King: If you take that view, Mr. Speaker, I most certainly withdraw.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I also speak as an hon. Member who has served in the armed forces in Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are sometimes in danger of discussing these matters while losing sight of the general context? Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement proves to the House that the Government's only object is to ensure that fairness and accuracy are put on the record, whichever Administration may have been in power at the relevant time?
Mr. King: That has been my purpose today. If errors of this kind are discovered, it is important that one comes immediately to the House to make that clear. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces set out the full background to these matters. My right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members who were given incorrect information have received full letters setting out what we believe to be the correct position.
Mr. Max Madden: Does the Secretary of State now accept that he has demonstrated clearly that the Prime Minister should have been making the statement this afternoon? Having misled the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and having refused to make a statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind what he is saying. What the Prime Minister has admitted is that she inadvertently misled the House.
Mr. Madden: Does not the Secretary of State very much regret that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to listen to one second of the statement that he has made this afternoon? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Prime Minister that he has been unable to persuade the House of the matters that we are debating, and that his very unconvincing performance of bluff and bluster has not prevented him from sinking in the House this afternoon?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to come to the House on Monday to announce that there is to be a full independent inquiry into all the matters that we have been discussing, and that there will be a parliamentary investigation, either through a special Select Committee or through the Select Committee on Privileges, to examine the activities of Mr. Wallace in relation to Members of Parliament and former Members of Parliament?
Mr. King: I think it is absolutely ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Prime Minister should come to the House to apologise for an error made in documents
464
being overlooked in the Ministry of Defence. I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces take full responsibility for that. I have come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity—I landed from Washington at half-past 8 this morning—to make a full statement to the House. The hon. Gentleman's comments are purely trivial.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that we have a heavy day in front of us. May I ask hon. Members to reflect on their questions and to ask for information that has not already been given?
Mr. Kenneth Hind: We on this side of the House congratulate my right hon. Friend on his frankness. Will he confirm that, in his investigations in his Department, there has been no proved link between what he has revealed to us today and the allegations that have been made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr Campbell-Savours) about the so-called "dirty tricks department"? Will he also confirm that the defence of Mr. Wallace, at his trial where he was convicted for murder by a jury—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]—which was upheld by the Court of Appeal—
Mr. Cryer: Disinformation.
Mr. Hind: —depended on the fact that he had been framed by the secret services, which must cast some doubt on some of the things that he has been saying?
Mr. King: I confirm, as I made clear in my statement, that the further information which has come to light has no relevance whatever to the other matters that he raised.
Mr. Chris Mullin: In addition to the documents mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), may I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State a 100-page pamphlet, illustrated with about 100 photographs. which seeks to denigrate in a scurrilous way his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), which was circulated at the 1974 general election? Any inquiry that fails to address that and the documents already mentioned will not be credible.
Mr. King: As I have told other hon. Members, the question is whether the hon. Member has any evidence of the authorship of that document. I could point him to documents circulated in Northern Ireland that denigrated me in a particularly vicious and nasty way. I know that it is no good complaining about it, but I have a good idea of the origin and authorship of those documents.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Some years ago, the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service sent the Prime Minister several documents, some from Mr. Colin Wallace, some from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants as it then was, and one from Mr. Peter Broderick, the head of the information service for the Army in Northern Ireland. They showed clearly that there was a dirty tricks campaign in Northern Ireland. How comes it that, in the years since, the enemy from within has been allowed to lie, lie and lie again about what has been happening, but no Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to say, "That is not true; we now have the truth; we have seen the documents"?
Mr. King: As I am the Minister who has come to say that documents have been found, the hon. Gentleman should give me the credit for it.
Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Secretary of State accept that, however fascinating the history of this episode, there is currently great cause for anxiety about the activities of the security services? The Secretary of State, as Minister directly responsible for military intelligence, his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), sitting on his right, who was formerly responsible for the secret services, and the Prime Minister, who is now responsible for all the security services, will be aware that the way in which things work is that they are informed on a "need to know" basis. Is he satisfied today that he knows all that he needs to know to ensure that such dirty tricks campaigns are neither happening now, with Colin Wallaces in new guises, nor will happen in the run-up to the next general election?
Mr. King: My statement and the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as well as what the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, have made it clear that, whatever practices there may have been in the 1970s, they were clearly and firmly stopped. I have no evidence whatever that such a policy continued to be pursued, either in the right hon. Member's time of office or in mine.
Mr. William Ross: Surely it is inconceivable to any reasonable man or woman that the people with and for whom Mr. Wallace worked embarked on the operation without thinking it through and forming an objective? If I recall correctly, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said that, according to some documents, it was an objective of the generals. That is to say, they had an objective beyond and different from that of the elected Government of the day.
In Northern Ireland, we should like to know precisely what the political and constitutional objective was. We should also like to know why the information, misinformation or disinformation—call it what one will —has been referred to only in relation to Great Britain politicians.
All of us who work in politics in Northern Ireland know that, during the 1970s, the whole place was alive with rumours about leading politicians, especially those from the Unionist community. Many of those rumours were designed to injure the standing of those politicians, not only in their own communities but throughout the Northern Ireland community. Frankly, many of them were dredged out of a cesspool.
This is a serious matter. The Government and Conservative Members do not seem to understand that the present Government continue to be the victim of what happened in the 1970s. It was not an error but a deliberate policy perpetrated against the Government, and which the Government repeated to the House. That makes it a constitutional issue of the greatest importance. It is wrong for any Government to say that they will not carry out the fullest inquiry to discover what happened, if only for their own protection and that of the Prime Minister and of subsequent Cabinets.
Mr. King: It is clear, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made it clear, that any policy of disinformation designed to denigrate
466
individuals or organisations in the early 1970s was stopped. If there is any further evidence of such a policy, it should be brought forward. I have nothing to add to the statement that I have already made.
Mr. Cryer: But on the evidence from the Secretary of State's hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall)—Colin Wallace's Member of Parliament—documentation has been requested from the Department since 1986. Why has it taken four years to discover those documents? When was the search instituted and how many days ago was that handful of documents discovered? Will there be a search for the other five and a half or more files of documents that it is alleged have gone missing?
Is not the Secretary of State worried that the matter goes to the extent of treason? He seems to be prepared to defend the security services whatever dirty tricks they get up to, even to the point—this should be clearly noted by the House—of denigrating hon. Members for exercising their democratic options in the House. The aim of the security services was an attack on our very system of democracy. Would not an inquiry by the Select Committee on Home Affairs be a way of ensuring full democratic accountability? As the Committee is made up entirely of hon. Members, what is wrong with that?
Mr. King: I am not sure whether the hon. Member was listening to the answers that I gave earlier, including the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall). I have nothing to add to the statement that I have made about the approach that we should now adopt to these matters.
Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the narrow field in which the Secretary of State has responded, will he answer the questions asked earlier? Are any of those involved in disinformation or giving advice to Ministers still in responsible positions as advisers to the Government or in public service?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the matter could go beyond the Ministry of Defence into other areas, even the Northern Ireland Office? Does he accept that it will take a wider inquiry to deal with the issues, the innuendo that still surrounds the people involved in the Kincora inquiry and the allegations that Colin Wallace was the third member present at the murder of Tommy Herren?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman chose to widen his questions into precisely the areas where I said that no evidence arising out of the matters that I have reported to the House has been substantiated or gives fresh ground for anxiety. On the question of who authorised Mr. Wallace, it is clear that he was already undertaking unattributable briefing activities, which may have included misinformation, before he was authorised to do so.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State said that documents were overlooked. On what day were they found? What was the date? He must have it on file somewhere.
Mr. King: They were found early last year. The first document was found then. On the instruction of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, a formal investigation was held to find out whether other information was available to guide us.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: If the Secretary of State is right to tell the House that these matters have come as a surprise to Ministers and senior civil servants, why, in the early years of this Administraion, while Colin Wallace was in prison, was a senior-level meeting held inside the Ministry of Defence at which Ministers and senior civil servants, including Clive Ponting, were present?
The discussion was about the danger to the reputation of the Government if Colin Wallace came out of prison and continued to make the statements that he had made before he went in? How can we be told that the matter is a shock and a surprise? All the documents that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has shown to the House were delivered to the Prime Minister in November 1984. Why was nothing done about that?
Given that the Government have now admitted the status of Colin Wallace, can we be told why it was that, when Colin Wallace warned his superiors about child abuse in Kincora in 1974, no action was taken and that child abuse continued until the issue was made public by the press?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman tries to widen the issue beyond the point that I made. I shall seek to give the exact date when the first document came to light, on the basis of which an instruction was given for a full examination. A considerable number of documents had to be examined to make sure that there were no other inaccuracies in what is a very serious issue indeed.
It may not be clear that the first document was not the job specification; it was not any evidence that anything was given to Colin Wallace. It was as listed. If the hon. Gentleman has read the Minister of State's written answer, he will know that it was a background paper seeking to justify expenditure on a further information officer in Headquarters Northern Ireland.
That was not conclusive proof, and that is why it was necessary to find out whether Colin Wallace was given the job specification and to seek to come to the House with proper information. We have come to the House not with a complete story but with something which is of sufficient concern and which we believe means that, in justice to Mr. Colin Wallace, the matter should be investigated and reviewed by Mr. Calcutt.
Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Mr. Calcutt will have the powers to obtain and to make use of the job specification? Will he also confirm that section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 makes it clear that not only those in the security services but those who work in support of them can obtain immunity and the like? Will he guarantee that immunity from prosecution will be provided under that Act?
468
How can the Secretary of State give a guarantee about "Clockwork Orange", which was not extended beyond Northern Ireland, when he freely admits that he has not seen the relevant papers?
Lastly, does the Secretary of State agree that to appear on a blacklist drawn up by terrorists is one thing, but to appear on a blacklist drawn up by servants of the Crown, whose responsibility was to uphold our freedom, is a completely different matter? As those people are senior Members of the House, surely it is reasonable that, as requested by hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have the fullest public inquiry so as to satisfy the House, to clear the names of those besmirched and to restore public confidence outside the House in the workings of our affairs?
Mr. King: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes—I have forgotten the question but I know the answer.
Mr. O'Neill: The job specification.
Mr. King: Although the job specification is a classified document, Mr. Calcutt will have access to it and he will be able to show it to Mr. Wallace. I have also been advised that Mr. Wallace will be authorised to give the authorities the facts in the other matters that have been raised, so no offence arises under the Official Secrets Act. In that respect, there is no change from the old Act, which only made unauthorised publication an offence.
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate on the private Members' motions—
Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: After this length of time, and given the pressure on time, I hope that hon. Members are raising points of order with which I can deal.
Mr. Madden: My point of order is precisely a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that an application for the matter to be referred to the Select Committee on Privileges has been made to you. Can you say when you intend to make a statement?
Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot, because I am considering the matter and I have had to write to the hon. Member concerned asking for further information.
Mr. Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There is great pressure on time. Other hon. Members are bound to lose time as a result of points of order now.
Mr. Hind: When I asked a question of the Secretary of State, I wrongly said that Mr. Wallace was convicted of murder. In fact, he was convicted of manslaughter, and I wish to apologise to him and to the House.

Ten-minute Rule Bills (Budget Day)
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For reasons that are obvious to the House, it has been necessary to take some time on that important statement. The Leader of the House will, if you now give him an opportunity, put before the House five motions. As I understand it, under an order passed by the House on Friday, you have to put the Question on those motions and any amendments to them at 7 o'clock, despite the fact that it is now 5.25. If I am not mistaken—you will be able to confirm this—you have no discretion about whether you put the Question. You are obliged to do so and you must bring the debate to a conclusion with a vote. The motions before us all have profound effects on the rights of Members. They curtail those rights in a series of different ways. The Leader of the House will have a case to make as will the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be making a speech.
Mr. Beith: I am putting it to you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Leader of the House is taking note, that, however well you discharge your duties, if you comply with the order passed on Friday, it will not be possible for all Back-Bench Members, who have a legitimate interest in the matter, to take part in the debate, yet it is their rights that are being taken away. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to tell the Leader of the House that you have no discretion about how long the debate can last, and that the matter should not be brought to a vote after so short a time.
Mr. Speaker: I confirm that I have no discretion in the matter. I have to put the motions at 7 o'clock. This is a joint debate. The five motions will be taken together, and I confirm that at the end I shall put only those motions that are moved.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, no. I am on my feet.
I have selected the first amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
Mr. Benn: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for five motions to be moved together without the consent of the House? My understanding is that motions of a differing character may be taken together if the House wishes it. Given the point that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made about the pressure of time, if only the first motion is moved we shall at least be able to debate that for an hour and a half, but if all five motions are put together, all five have to be put to the vote.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is an agreement —[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—that there should be a general debate on the five motions together.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Speaker: There was a business motion last week which set that out. I understand that that arrangement had general agreement.
Mr. Benn: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I fully understand that you have no discretion in what you have to do at 7 o'clock, but we have discretion about whether
470
to assent to the grouping of motions, all of which are quite separate in character. The House often discusses such motions together if it wishes to do so, but in this case the only way of protecting the time of the House on at least four of the motions is to object to them being taken together. Therefore, if it is in order, I object to the five motions being taken together—as, I gather, do other hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: Let me make it perfectly plain. When the Leader of the House rises, he will move the first of the motions, but I understand that there is an agreement that all the motions should be debated together. I am sure that there is a great deal of interest in these matters, but to date no one has indicated their interest in taking part in the debate, although, of course, no one has to do that in writing.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that it will be helpful to you, because you are in a difficult position, which is not of your making. Will you confirm that, if the Leader of the House were not to press some of the motions today, there need be no vote on those? You, Sir, have no discretion, but the Leader of the House does, and he should take account of what hon. Members are saying.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
That is extremely helpful of the hon. Gentleman, because that is exactly what I mentioned. I can put to the vote only those motions which are actually moved. Until we hear the Leader of the House, I do not know which ones he intends to move.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just told the House that no Member indicated in writing a desire to participate in the debate. I most certainly did.
Mr. Speaker: Yes. I confirm that the hon. Lady did.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on Friday there was a business motion. It quite clearly allows the votes to be taken at the end. It does not state that the Leader of the House has to move the motions collectively. If he so chooses, and if the House agrees, the Leader of the House can move the first one, we can debate it and deal with it. The business motion does not compel the House as a whole to deal with all five motions collectively and dispose of them. The Leader of the House can help in this matter.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)rose—
Mr. Speaker: It appears that the Leader of the House is about to help in this matter.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been trying to see how best to deal with this, because these are important matters for the House as a whole and the time for debating them has been curtailed. However, I would not wish to set aside time

471
to no purpose. As I understand it, we could debate all five motions even if I moved only one. If I have that option —it seems to be the convenient one—I should move motion No. 4, which relates to ten-minute Bills on Budget day, which has the widest assent. Of course, hon. Members may oppose it, but it is the one most likely to be generally supported.
The debate could range over all five motions and we could return on a subsequent occasion to votes on the other matters. That would be the most convenient way of proceeding, because we want to use the time usefully, but not in such a fashion as to deprive hon. Members of the opportunity of considering the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The House has heard what the Leader of the House has said. Let us proceed.
5.33 pm
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I beg to move,
That no notice may be given under Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) for a day on which Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared his intention of opening his Budget; but

(i) notices proposed to be given for such day, and

(ii) notices so given for a day in respect of which such intention is subsequently declared,

shall be treated as having been given for the first Monday on which the House shall sit after the Budget is opened, and may be proceeded with on that day as though it were a Tuesday or a Wednesday.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
I am grateful to the House for giving me time, by raising points of order, to reflect on the matter sufficiently to reach a conclusion which makes reasonable sense.
As the House knows, the five motions arise from the second and third reports of the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session. Three of them relate to private Members' time and two to ten-minute Bills. I am moving the first of the two relating to ten-minute Bills. They provide a sensible package to consider together.
Motion Nos. 1 to 3 relate to private Members' time. The overall purpose of the three motions is to ensure that, as far as possible, the time available for private Members' business is fully used for that purpose, not interrupted or disrupted by the unintended or unorthodox use of procedures relating to other issues. They are also intended to avoid any unusual use of procedure which would affect the precedence of private Members' Bills as determined in the ballot and Standing Orders, or provide additional time for a particular Bill beyond that allotted to private Members.
When it made these recommendations, the Procedure Committee was not concerned with the progress or fate of individual Bills, and nor am I. Our common purpose is simply to protect private Members' time—no more, no less —and that is what the motions set out to do.
Of the two motions relating to ten-minute Bills, motion No. 4, which I have moved, is intended to ensure that the opening of the Budget is not delayed by a ten-minute Bill. The other motion on that topic—motion No. 5—is tabled to overcome problems which have arisen under the existing queueing system by replacing it with a ballot system.
Of the three motions on private Members' time, motion No. 3 would mean that, on a Friday on which private Members' business had precedence, any petition remaining to be presented at 10 am would stand over until 2.30
472
pm. In practice, in the ordinary way, the presentation of petitions on such days is normally completed well before 10 am. On the one occasion when that was not the case, the subject of the petition was the same as the motion to be debated on that day.
On this matter, I agree with the Procedure Committee that reform on the lines suggested in motion No. 3 would not involve any real curtailment of Back Benchers' rights, and no one seriously argues to the contrary.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Leader of the House aware that all this tidying up and rationalisation operates against the interests of any Member, from whichever party, who is determined to raise a subject? We can all easily go in for ballots. It takes a little effort, guts and sweat to queue for many hours. It is an interesting question of philosophy: should we operate a general ballot to the advantage of the Executive or give some chance to hon. Members who, rightly or wrongly—for whatever cause, good or bad—are prepared to sweat it out in that room upstairs?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman intervenes at the wrong stage of my speech. When I deal with the relevant motion I shall express some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. He should allow me to come to that. I am dealing with motions Nos. 1 to 3; he is making a point about motion No. 5 with which I shall deal in a moment.
Under the terms of motion No. 2, if a motion for a by-election writ moved on a Friday—on which private Members' business has precedence—was opposed, it would not be pursued at that time on that Friday. This motion represents a modest improvement on the original recommendation. The Procedure Committee's proposal was that, if proceedings on such a motion had not been disposed of by 10 am, they should stand over to the next sitting day.
There are two good reasons for being a little more positive than the Procedure Committee. First, such a motion, if not taken formally, might not be disposed of in half an hour. It would be sensible to avoid starting something which might not be finished, but which could nevertheless encroach on private Members' business which was to follow.
Secondly, such a motion would take precedence over the presentation of petitions, and would therefore encroach on the time available for their presentation. The overall effect of the variation contained in my motion would be no different from the Procedure Committee's proposal, but it would lessen the scope for encroachment on private Members' time. Its effect would be that the by-election writ motion would stand over for consideration on the next business day—the Monday.
It has become customary for writs to be moved on a Tuesday, and it is most unlikely that a party would seek to move a writ on a Friday. In practice, polling normally takes place on a Thursday. By deferring the moving of a writ from a Friday to a Monday, the same two Thursdays would be available for polling.
Mr. Skinner: The Leader of the House was a Member of Parliament on the two occasions when I moved a writ on a Friday. I was doing him, as well as many of my hon. Friends, a good turn on those two occasions—especially on the first, when Enoch Powell was involved in trying to keep people here through the weekend. I was trying to stop his queue-jumping Bill. The right hon. and learned

473
Gentleman will remember that, almost certainly, he would have been kept here Friday, Friday night, Saturday and Sunday until the Bill had got through the House. I was doing the Leader of the House a service.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the trail-blazing role played on that occasion by the hon. Gentleman. Since he undertook that noble task, the matter has been considered by the Procedure Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery); from that joint distillation of activity and intellectual effort, these proposals have emerged. That simple change —transplanting the day from Friday to Monday—will still leave the same two Thursdays available for polling.
I emphasise that the motion does not preclude the moving of a writ, but it prevents Members from using it as a ploy to delay the start of private Members' business. It takes its place alongside the other proposals in relation to private Members' business.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the Leader of the House leaves that point, will he confirm that what the Procedure Committee recommended would have stopped any proceedings at 10 am on a Friday on which there were private Members' Bills or private Members' motions? As I read it, under his motion, the person who moves the writ could speak for three hours, because it says "and is opposed". It cannot be opposed until the person who moves it stops speaking—that is the first moment at which it can be opposed. Surely that is so?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is an astute observer of the parliamentary scene. I hope that he is not right; it is certainly not intended that he should be right.
Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is right.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is why I treat my hon. Friend with such respect. The motion that I have moved is not the one to which my hon. Friend directs his gaze, which gives me the opportunity to consider it a little more if that is necessary.
Mr. Skinner: Oh, that's good.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Well, I have to take advantage of the opportunities presented to me.
The effect of motion No. 1 would be to prevent a private Member from moving a motion to amend or suspend Standing Orders, unless the House had previously agreed in the same Session that it was necessary or expedient to do so. In particular, it would prevent a private Member's motion from being used as a device to facilitate the passage of a private Member's Bill by providing additional time for it as exempted business, by giving it precedence over other private Members' Bills or by allocating specific time to it.
Miss Widdecombe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Not in the middle of a sentence, even for my hon. Friend.
The Procedure Committee did not think that it would be acceptable to the House for private Members' motions to introduce significant procedural changes that could
474
affect the progress and priority of individual private Members' Bills. It thought that that would destroy the carefully balanced and well-understood arrangements for private Members' business.
Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend is talking about preventing a private Member from moving a motion. Does he agree that, in this instance, a private Member cannot bulldoze anything through the House? It all depends on the will of the House. Should not my right hon. and learned Friend say that he is preventing the whole sum of Back Benchers and everyone else from deciding whether they wish to allocate time to a particular motion? Is that not what he is really saying?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am saying that the arrangements that are basically in place for the deployment of time between public and private business and the management of the time available for private Members' business are the result of a great deal of analysis, thought and experience over a long period. As the House knows, in November the Government responded to certain recommendations of the Procedure Committee by extending the time available for private Members in aggregate—I think, by one day. It would not be sensible to allow that set of arrangements to be disturbed by private Members in the way identified in the motion.
The Procedure Committee thought that the change that we are seeking to prevent would destroy the carefully balanced and well-understood arrangements for private Members' business. For example, a Bill introduced under the ten-minute rule procedure—which may not be set down for Second Reading until private Members successful in a ballot have had the opportunity to choose their slot for Second Reading—could be given precedence over a ballot Bill.
Miss Widdecombe: Or over the will of the House.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, but we do not think that the change would be sensible. The House has the opportunity to consider the matter today. Similarly, such a change could result in a Bill low in the ballot leap-frogging one that is higher up in the ballot.
The motion provides a balance for two other motions, which clear the decks, so far as is possible, to allow unimpeded consideration of private Members' business within the accepted procedures. This motion, which forms part of the trio, ensures that those procedures are maintained and not altered to favour a particular private Member's Bill. More generally, the motion precludes Standing Orders being amended by a private Member's motion. I agree with the Procedure Committee that, on balance, it is not appropriate that our procedures should be amended in that way.
I emphasise that the changes do not preclude general or specific procedural changes being the subject of a private Member's motion, but would prevent the motion from being couched in terms that could implement immediate change. Private Members would retain the right to express opinion on such matters, but not to make changes without wider support in the House than, perhaps, a low vote on a Friday at the initiative of one Member.
Mr. Beith: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to observe well-understood and established practices, does he not think that the Government should be subject to at least some degree of similar restraint? The

475
Government can, on a low vote in the House on a Friday, similarly move motions that change Standing Orders or —this happens more often—vary their impact or exempt certain business from their impact. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is worried about the balance being changed, why has he sat back and watched the balance shift in favour of the Government on similar matters over a long period?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a separate point. Today, we are concerned with the preservation of the existing balance, which the motions are designed to achieve.
Miss Widdecombe rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I regret that I cannot continually give way. There is not a great deal of time, and I want to put the case before the House.
I shall deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) when he has had the opportunity to speak to it.
Taking the three motions together, and also taking account of the Sessional Order moved on 22 November 1989, they ensure that additional time is provided for private Members' business and that that business, as well as its timing and precedence, is—so far as possible—protected from interruption or disruption by other matters or by the misuse of otherwise legitimate procedural devices. That is the basis on which I believe the three motions provide an outcome that is both fair and balanced.
There are two motions dealing with ten-minute Bills. The effect of motion No. 4 would be that no ten-minute Bill would be introduced on Budget day. The slot would not be lost, but would be moved to the Monday following Budget day. In the unlikely event that the date of the Budget was to be announced so late that notice of a ten-minutes rule application had already been given for that day, the ten-minute Bill would be moved to the following Monday.
Mr. Skinner: I bet there is a loophole there.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There may be, but I hope not.
As the Procedure Committee suggests, I think that the proposal would be for the convenience of most hon. Members. It would not restrict the rights of Back Benchers, but would preserve them, given the various methods used to avoid a ten-minute Bill on Budget day. I know that some Members may relish the prospect of a Budget day slot, when the House is unusually full, but I think that for most Members it would be an unwarranted disruption and irritation. Speaking as an ex-Chancellor, I can confirm that I always welcomed the opportunity to get into my Budget speech without having to wait until after the presentation of a ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I speak with some experience of this matter, because I think that I was the last Member to have a ten-minute Bill on Budget day—back in 1985, when the Chancellor was the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). My recollection is that I received a very warm reception from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, the House gave me leave to introduce my Bill, despite the fact that it was critical of the Chancellor's handling of the economy.
I cannot think of any justification for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal. In previous years, the
476
Chancellor took retaliatory action by using some of his messenger boys—parliamentary private secretaries in the Treasury and elsewhere—to abuse the system by squatting in the Public Bill Office, on a rota basis, sometimes for several days and nights. They never had any intention of moving a motion. When it was too late for another hon. Member to take the slot, the Tory Member withdrew the motion and the House was deprived of the opportunity of a ten-minute rule slot on Budget day.
That was an abuse of the House through dog-in-the-manger tactics. It is wrong that the Leader of the House should want to move the goalposts and further limit the opportunity for Back-Bench Members to obtain a slot on Budget day. Does it have anything to do with the televising of the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman disproves his own case. If he is the only hon. Member ever to have presented a ten-minute rule Bill on Budget day, that proves that it is neither a substantial nor a long-felt wish for democratic rights. The hon. Gentleman was an eccentric in that achievement, and the fact that no one had done the same before shows that the overriding wish of the House has always been to get straight on to the Chancellor's Budget.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not want to widen the debate, because I sense that on the particular issue now under consideration I have the House on my side.
In making strenuous efforts subsequently to ensure that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West did not have an opportunity to repeat his success, and that subsequent Budgets were introduced without interruption, certain hon. Members performed a public service, legitimised by the recommendation of the Procedure Committee—and now by the House, when it votes.
The fifth motion was the subject of an intervention by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He has now come back in time to study that question. The effect of the motion will be to replace the existing first come, first served, queuing system with a ballot. Consideration of the case for that change arose in the last Session, when right hon. and hon. Members began queuing for increasingly long periods to secure slots for ten-minute Bills.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has many qualifications for intervening, but perhaps he will allow me to give way at a sensible point.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also allow me to intervene at a sensible point?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is for consideration.
The first come, first served, system led to friction because of the way in which right hon. and hon. Members took the place of others in the queue. It also caused difficulties for the House authorities. Because right hon. and hon. Members queued in the Public Bill Office conference room, it could not be used for its proper purpose, and it became necessary for the Clerk of the

477
House to inform Mr. Speaker that the work of the Public Bill Office was being affected—and he does not often make reports of that dramatic impact.
Mr. Winnick: As there are ballots for Adjournment debates and for oral questions, is there any reason why there should not be a ballot for ten-minute Bills? What is so holy and sacred about queueing all night? My view is not influenced in the least by the fact that the last time I did so I contracted shingles the following week.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Walsall, North, because it illustrates one style. In the hon. Members for Walsall, North and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), one sees one hon. Member who is lusting for the right to queue all night, and another who is happy that I should take away that opportunity.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. I must be allowed to develop that point.
My predecessor as Leader of the House was originally disposed to move a similar motion last summer, but the problem eased and he did not do so. It is obvious that this motion evokes strong feelings among some Back Benchers on both sides of the House. The existing arrangements provide an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members who hold strong views on an issue to do something about it. They see the chance of 10 minutes of prime time as a reward for persistence and initiative—one that they would like to retain—rather than simply good fortune in a ballot.
Mr. Corbyn: I have introduced seven ten-minute Bills by means of queueing in the Public Bill Office conference room—although better facilities, such as heating, could be provided there. However, I have never been successful with a private Member's motion or a Bill under the ballot procedure, which I have used at every opportunity since entering the House.
I am not complaining of my lack of success in the ballot but making the point that I have been successful with ten-minute Bills by making an effort as an ordinary Back Bencher whereas I have never been successful under the ballot procedure. The motion will remove the opportunity for initiative.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall seek to explain that I am not doing that which the hon. Gentleman thinks I am doing.
I have identified the fact that a choice must be made between those who want a reward for their persistence and initiative and those who are prepared to rely on a ballot. Although persistence is commendable as a general virtue, we should not preserve a massive endurance test—particularly if it is likely to inconvenience the Clerk of the House. I should not wish to see a return to the situation that existed last summer. However, I am conscious of the feelings of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I have to strike a balance between the rights that they wish to cherish, the effective working of the House, and the inconvenience that can be caused to Officers and other officials.
I am standing even further back from the fifth motion, which I have not yet moved, than from the others—and I shall be interested to hear the views of right hon. and hon.
478
Members on it. If there is a strong feeling that the existing arrangements should be maintained, I am prepared not to move it.
Miss Widdecombe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way now?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will no doubt have an opportunity to make a speech herself. I am trying to explain that I am so conscious of the balance of feeling on both sides of the House that I am willing to reach a conclusion in the light of the opinion that is expressed. I hope that my hon. Friend will contain her enthusiasm until an opportunity arises for her to speak.
If there were to be a recurrence of last summer's situation, I would not hesitate to bring the final motion before the House again. However, provided that we can maintain the existing balance, I do not intend to press it.
Miss Widdecombe rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I must conclude.
Subject to my comments on the fifth motion, I believe that all five would, if passed, bring added clarity to our procedures and, taken together, be to the benefit of the House as a whole. Taken together, they do not unduly restrict or erode Back Benchers' rights but instead protect them by providing for private Members' business to be considered on its merits, without the intrusion of other matters. To balance that, it will not be possible for private Members to seek to alter the procedures of the House to benefit any particular private Member's Bill.
The motion relating to Budget day will preserve the slot for ten-minute Bills that would otherwise be lost. As to the fifth motion and the choice between endurance or ballot, I am ready to listen to the views of the House, because I should not want to press ahead if it does not have general support.
5.57 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: The time available for private Members' Bills is already limited but is nevertheless very important. There is general agreement that that time should be safeguarded whenever possible. When I escaped from the minefield of the rate support grant, I little realised that I was entering another minefield of procedural argument that crosses the Floor of the House.
Mr. Winnick: And it is far more complex.
Dr. Cunningham: It is far more complex, and certainly far more dangerous.
It is not surprising that discussions about making changes to the time allowed to private Members are themselves contentious. In the past, private Members' time has been used to introduce legislation on abortion, the abolition of hanging, regional policy, wildlife and countryside issues, and the protection of badgers. Those were all highly controversial and important issues. I support the Leader of the House's view that, whatever else we want, we do not want any diminution of the time available to private Members to set the agenda of the House.
Mr. Corbyn: It was good of my hon. Friend to outline some of the Bills of significant social and environmental importance introduced in private Members' time. Does he

479
agree that it should be increased so that Bills can be debated? That would end the nonsense of the objection system and provide an opportunity not just to present a Bill in 10 minutes but to debate it, and allow the introduction of legislation by Back Benchers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the balance has shifted away from right hon. and hon. Members to the Executive who occasionally inform—or, rather, misinform—the House about their actions?
Dr. Cunningham: Although I agree with my hon. Friend that we should have more time, that is not one of the points under discussion today. As I understand from the proposals on the Order Paper, private Members are getting slightly more time in the House. That is to be welcomed. As for more time on ten-minute Bills, the Leader of the House has made it clear that he does not intend to move his proposal for ballots for ten-minute Bills. Although I have no objection to a change in procedure for balloting for ten-minute Bills, I am quite content that we should allow hon. Members more time to discuss the proposal.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the valid point he is making about Back Benchers' time—I am sure that all hon. Members agree that Back Benchers should have as much time as possible —does he deprecate the fact that uniquely, on Tuesday, a Front-Bench spokesman presented a ten-minute Bill?
Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not deprecate that. As I have said at the Dispatch Box in respect of applications under Standing Order No. 20, every hon. Member has the same rights in these matters. I do not accept the argument that a Front Bencher who wishes to raise an important issue —a constituency issue, for example—should be denied the opportunity available to other hon. Members to use the procedures of the House to pursue it or to raise it.
Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Cunningham: I have said to my hon. Friend that I do not wish to take up a lot of time because our debate has been severely curtailed.
Mr. Skinner: It is in answer to the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay).
Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way, but I hope that nobody will complain that I have taken too long.
Mr. Skinner: Perhaps I take a different view on these motions from that of my hon. Friend, but that is not the point I am making right now. The ten-minute Bill on Tuesday would have been moved by a Labour Front Bencher in any case. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East thinks that the person who got the ten-minute Bill was a Back Bencher, but it was a Front Bencher—my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)—who passed it on to another Front Bencher.
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it was my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) who got the ten-minute slot in the first place. However, perhaps I can move on.
It is no secret that usually, but not always, there is great controversy, not on party political lines but across the Floor of the House, when private Members' Bills are brought before the House. We know that there are alliances across the Floor of the House for and against
480
many of those controversial matters. It seems today that, although right hon. and hon. Members present have been diametrically opposed on certain issues and on the merits of Bills, they seem to be joined together to defend the status quo on the procedures. In other words, they want to reserve the opportunity to use, or perhaps in some case to abuse, the procedures of the House to defeat controversial issues in private Members' time because they do not agree with the merits of a Bill before the House.
I welcome the three motions referring to the moving of the writ, the presentation of petitions and the use of private Members' motions to change Standing Orders because they are a serious and welcome attempt to safeguard precious private Members' time. The proposals come with the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, which I also applaud. Those three motions are worthy of general support.
I have already referred to ballots for ten-minute Bills. I shall not waste any more time on that, as the Leader of the House has said that he will not pursue that matter today. I turn now to ten-minute Bills on Budget day. In 1981 my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) introduced a ten-minute Bill when the Leader of the House was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that occasion. I also well remember the amusing and witty speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), which he rightly said was enjoyed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) who was the hapless victim of that speech. However, I personally support the view that on a day as important as Budget day we should not have to wait any additional time for the presentation of the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As there will be no diminution of the time available for ten-minute Bills—it will simply not be possible to introduce them on Budget day—I support that proposal.
It is inevitable that proposals to change the procedures of the House will meet strong opposition and be regarded as controversial. I have never been a fan or a supporter of the more arcane aspects of procedure and the way in which we conduct our business. I believe that the whole matter of procedure and how we deal with business in the House is long overdue a fundamental overhaul, and I hope that we can achieve that before much longer. For the life of me I do not believe that our constituents think that the way in which we proceed on many occasions is sensible in the interests of either good legislative scrutiny of the Executive or producing good legislation. I am sure that if we asked our constituents they would like a breath of fresh air blown through the Chamber and other aspects of procedure in the House of Commons. Although by comparison to what I have been calling for these measures are relatively small and even modest, I welcome the reports of the Procedure Committee and offer general support to the propositions enunciated by the Leader of the House and I hope that the four motions that I support can be determined today. If that is possible, I shall certainly vote for them.
6.7 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I start by thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and congratulating him on setting quite a precedent in bringing

481
forward two debates on procedure within four months or so—twice in this Session of Parliament—when previous Leaders of the House have not been able to find time for reports that have stood for months and years without being debated. I welcome that immensely.
I was delighted to hear the shadow Leader of the House's commitment to reform of procedure. I have tried time and again to drag the procedures of the House screaming into the 20th century. I welcome the fact that we have support from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. We have not always had that in the past, and it is a most encouraging step forward.
Let me make it absolutely clear that one of the important principles, as any hon. Member who has sat on the Procedure Committee will agree, has been that the objective of the Procedure Committee has been at all times to try to defend the rights and the time available to Back Benchers. That is one of the major factors always in the minds of those on the Procedure Committee, because only they can protect Back Benchers from the power of the Executive. This debate is important, because that is exactly what the motions are intended to do.
It is immensely important that motions 1, 2 and 3 are seen as a package; they must not be taken individually. In the report of the Procedure Committee it is clearly stated that they must be introduced only as a package. What is the reason for that? After the debate on 20 January 1989, Mr. Speaker said:
"I hope that we shall not go through this kind of thing again."
He said later
"It is for the Leader of the House … to put his proposals to the Procedure Committee. I am sure that it will consider them."—[Official Report, 20 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 661-62.]
We then had a letter from the Leader of the House asking us to consider how we could defend private Members' time.
All this arose because of somebody trying to "cheat" or "find a way round" the normal procedure for private Members' Bills, and those who were against that saying they would find a way of stopping it. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was most effective. When an hon. Member introduced a motion on a private Members' day to try to give special power to her Bill and put it above the Bills of other Members in the ballot, that was seen by many hon. Members as being unfair. The hon. Member for Bolsover said that a way would be found of putting an end to this, and that is exactly what happened, and the House decided that that procedure would not be followed.
Arising from that, therefore, we have brought forward this balance. We have said in the first motion that a private Member will not be able to gain special powers by a private Member's motion that goes beyond the normal allotted time. It would be wrong for that Member to be able to obtain that time in the first instance. If the Member can get the approval of the House twice, that is another matter. But, if we take that power away from Members, we must at the same time try to establish the balance that no other Member should be able to interfere with the private Member's motion time either by introducing petitions or by moving writs in order to take that time away.
We are attempting to ensure that when a Member wins time for a private Member's motion he or she will be able
482
to have all the time from 10 o'clock until 2.30 uninterrupted on the motion; or, if it is a private Member's Bill, that time cannot be eaten into. If either of these is limited, the balance is taken away and preference given to one side.
I have tried to point out to the House that these three motions all hang together and that in our judgement it would be wrong to amend them, or to accept two and leave one out. Indeed, if the House wished to do that I would say that we ought not to have the other two either. We either have the package as a whole or we have nothing at all.
Miss Widdecombe: I will ignore, until I have some chance to contribute to the debate, the rather vulgar references to cheating and queue jumping. But is there not a very clear distinction between the three motions, inasmuch as two are deliberately designed to obstruct and one is designed to take away the will of the House? If the House believes that a Member is trying to cheat or queue jump, the House can say no; if it thinks otherwise, it can say yes. Why does the Procedure Committee think that the House should not be able to decide the issue itself?
Sir Peter Emery: I am amazed. I have spent some time trying to explain the point and it has been entirely ignored. We are not taking powers away; we are stopping anybody getting round the procedure. Any hon. Member who believes otherwise has either not understood or not been in the House long enough to know the normal procedure.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman did not understand the question.
Sir Peter Emery: I understood it very well. The hon. Lady is afraid that she or other hon. Members will not be given special power to put something to the House to extend their right and enable them to further a Bill for longer. We are saying that this is "cheating"—that is in inverted commas and it was in inverted commas when I first said it—getting round the normal understanding of the ballot and the allocation of time to private Members. Private Members must realise that if they want a massive amount of time for their private Bills, they stand very little chance of getting them through, unless they can get general agreement.
The next two motions concern ten-minute Bills. The first concerns a ten-minute Bill on a Budget day. The Procedure Committee believed that it was the wish of most Back Benchers to get on to the Budget, and that they did not want this to be interfered with by the jollity of a ten-minute Bill speech. The Committee wanted to ensure that, if a Bill was not to be moved on Budget day, the slot for a private Member would not be taken away; in other words, private Members' time would not be lost. I am delighted that the Government have been willing to move in that direction and even allow a ten-minute Bill to be introduced on a Monday, which is not the normal time, in order to ensure that Back-Bench time is not taken away.
Perhaps I should remind Members what the ten-minute Bill is really about. It is intended to give Back-Bench Members the opportunity to introduce legislation, but if one analyses the facts, one sees that this is not what is happening at the moment. In the last Parliament, 194 ten-minute Bills were introduced on the Floor of the House. Permission was refused for only 23 at the time of their introduction. Only two of the 194 reached the statute book.
Mr. Skinner: One was yours.
Sir Peter Emery: No, that was a private Bill, not a private Member's Bill, and there is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a lot of difference.
The slot for the ten-minute Bill has altered from being a means of satisfying the desire of a Member to get legislation through. It has become a slot in which Back-Bench or other Members can make a ten-minute speech in prime time on a political issue.
Mr. Winnick: Why not?
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Why not?". That might be a fair question, but I think it right that hon. Members understand this when we are looking at the motion on leave to bring in a Bill.
What happened in the last Session was that hon. Members queued upstairs in the Committee Corridor sometimes for as long as four or five days. [Interruption.] I am told a fortnight. I can confirm four or five days, but it may have been longer. That, I believe, is immensely undignified.
Few hon. Members who play a leading role in the House can afford to spend up to a fortnight queuing. Balloting would enable the hon. Member for Bolsover to be in his place in the Chamber for questions. Hon. Members who play a major role in the House do not have the opportunity of a ten-minute Bill if the queueing system is abused. I am told that there is a working agreement to deal with this; I hope only that that is not a carve-up. If we return to the undignified and insanitary situation of hon. Members queueing for days on end, we shall return to what has been widely accepted in the House as an unfair system.
Mr. Winnick: If queueing is so marvellous, as hon. Members seem to believe, why should not we queue for early-day motions or to be the first hon. Members on the list to ask the Prime Minister a question? Surely the logic of that would be along the lines suggested by the critics of balloting. If we ballot for other matters, why not for ten-minute Bills?
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman—who is a member of my Committee, and I thank him for the work that he does for it—demonstrates impeccable logic—on this occasion, anyway.
Balloting protects the rights of the majority of hon. Members, not the minority who are willing to queue for a fortnight, and it will assist hon. Members who wish to play a major role in the House. That needs to be said and to be understood.
I urge hon. Members to ensure that the first three motions are passed because they achieve a proper balance that will ensure that when an hon. Member wins the ballot for a private Member's Bill or private Member's motion the time allocated will not be interfered with by hon. Members using procedural methods to further other matters. I hope that the motion relating to introducing Bills on Budget day will be accepted and that the power to deal with ten-minute Bills will be held in reserve in case the procedure gets out of hand again.
6.22 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: There were times when I thought that the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) was legislating for a House without people,
484
in which the reality of hon. Members wanting to pursue various causes was absent from our proceedings. I say that with some concern because I have worked with the hon. Gentleman for many years on the Procedure Committee, and I value the fairmindedness that he brings to its proceedings.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for recognising the difficulty in which the House would have been placed if there had been a vote on all the motions without a proper opportunity to debate them. He responded helpfully to hon. Members' requests. We shall reach a decision on only one of the motions and deal with the others at a later date. However, the other motions have been introduced into the debate, so they must be considered.
The background to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) was more extensive than the hon. Member for Honiton suggested. He said that an issue arose in the debate on abortion—it also arose in a later debate on a Bill about embryos—but he must realise that the principle that he enunciated, that the balance of private Members' time must always be preserved, goes back a little further. The House would never have passed legislation on abortion at any time in the past 50 years unless the balance had been deliberately changed. The Abortion Act 1967 was passed in Government time. The Government decided that they would change the arrangements and make time available.
The hon. Gentleman must also take into account how the issue came to light. He must recognise that the purpose of the motion brought before the House at that time was to take more private Members' time. Those who did not like it thought that it was a smash-and-grab raid on private Members' time. However, it added hugely to private Members' time by allowing a Bill to be considered in a way that the Government would insist that a Bill of their own was considered if they could not get it through in the time available. They do that every week of the year, and sometimes every day of the week. It is no good hon. Members shedding crocodile tears and saying that we are here to protect private Members' time by ensuring that hon. Members do not grab more time than the Government are prepared to offer. The House was being invited to accept or reject a motion that would have given hon. Members more time than they are normally given by the Government.
Sir Peter Emery rose—
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me. I would normally give way to him willingly, but he should learn that lesson.
Sir Peter Emery: May I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way? I was unaware that he was trying to catch my eye. Therefore, I will not interfere in his speech.
Mr. Beith: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to say that.
Hard cases make bad law. This matter has arisen from two occasions when hon. Members were lucky enough in the ballot to raise a subject of their choice. On the majority of occasions, the motion or resolution is debated and talked out. However, that offers the hon. Member an opportunity to ventilate an issue. It is rare that these circumstances arise, and it is likely that that will remain so.

485
The House must think carefully before changing its procedures in response to one or two incidents, because the House runs a risk when it does that. Not long ago, the Government lost business because the Consolidated Fund Bill ran through the night. There was a great panic and Front-Bench spokesmen said, "We must never let that happen again". They therefore changed the procedure for the Consolidated Fund Bill by introducing a regimented series of timed debates that offer no flexibility. That change was not justified on its merits but was made in response to a particular incident. It is always advisable to step back and think whether a change is desirable in the long term rather than as an appropriate response to an incident.
When I looked at the motion in more detail, I became even more anxious about its long-term desirability. It is a draconian motion—Henry VIII clauses have nothing on this—because it does not merely preclude hon. Members from extending the time available for a private Members' Bill or from jumping the queue; it prevents them from changing any Standing Orders in private Members' time. That is one of the reasons why I tabled two amendments. There is no obvious reason for the motion.
Under the motion, Parliament is trying to bind its successors, which we are not supposed to do. The motion says not only that something will be the case but that no hon. Member can introduce a motion to change it. It is an attempt by Parliament to bind its successors by ensuring that an hon. Member cannot change the effect even of this Standing Order. The reason for including paragraph (e) was to stop hon. Members doing what the Government do so often—dispense with the effects of a Standing Order.
Paragraph (d) embraces the entire book of Standing Orders within the terms of the motion. If hon. Members decided that they were fed up with the arrangement by which they book a seat at Prayers in order to keep a seat for the day, and an hon. Member tabled a motion to change that, it would be ineffective because the Table Office would say, "Sorry. We cannot accept this motion."
If an hon. Member thought that we should change the Standing Orders so that we did not have to wear a top hat or otherwise to be seated and covered when raising a point of order during a Division, that hon. Member could not go to the Table Office and table a motion to make that change on a private Members' day. An hon. Member would be unlikely to want to do that, because there would undoubtedly be more pressing public issues that he would want to raise. So it is pointless even to prevent him from doing it.
I cannot understand why the Procedure Committee or the Leader of the House should table a motion to take away from private Members the right to put before the House changes in the Standing Orders, other than in a motion, which the Government can conveniently ignore, expressing an opinion. There is no point the Leader of the House saying that, if the House passes opinion motions, the effect of them would be carried out. He knows that such an assurance is worth no more than his tenure in office as Leader of the House.
All sorts of undertakings have been given from the Government Front Bench by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessors to do all manner of things. An undertaking was once given by a predecessor of the right
486
hon. and learned Gentleman that there would be time for prayers against negative statutory instruments on the Floor of the House whenever such time was sought. That undertaking has been dishonoured almost every month in the life of Parliament while I have been here. So passing opinion motions is no good. The Government are taking away from private Members their right to invite the House to change our Standing Orders.
I do not know any local authority in Britain that would have a ruling that precluded councillors from bringing before councils motions to change their standing orders. Sometimes there are built-in procedures to make such a step more difficult, such as a larger number of members having to support a motion, or the necessity for a larger majority or the need for a set number of members to be present and voting in a division.
It would have been worth the House considering procedures of that type. But to say that private Members can never in any circumstances bring before the House an effective motion to change or modify the effect of our Standing Orders is an extraordinary, perverse and draconian step to take.
Sir Peter Emery: It is not as draconian as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The motion says, in effect, that unless the House has previously agreed that the motion shall come forward, it shall not come forward a second time. So there must be two bites at the cherry; it cannot be done on one motion—there must be two. In other words, it is not that one can never do it but that one needs two, not one, motions to do it.
Mr. Beith: What is the effect of that? It means that one must come up in the ballot twice. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that in his time in the House he had not come up in the ballot once.
Mr. Skinner: Me neither.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been in the House longer than I have and he has never come up in the ballot for private Members' motions, though I am sure that his name has been put in every time. Now, we must come up not once but twice in the same Session of Parliament if we are to have some effect, or have a chum or croney say, "Never mind that I want to raise the question of the terrible plight of people in Cambodia or the question of the poverty of people in parts of the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency. I will give my day to you so that you may have a second attempt at a debate."
The Chairman of the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House are asking us to accept the inconceivable if they imagine that that is a reasonable process. It is not so bad if the Government must apply twice for something, because they have all the time in the world. They can easily appear twice before the House with a motion to achieve a change.
So the motion is shifting the balance of power from private Members to the Government. When I heard the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) supporting the motion, I realised that I was on the right side. When the Government and a spokesman of the Official Opposition get together, private Members are in trouble.
Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) got as worked up about some of

487
the important political issues of the day as he does about the subject under discussion, he might be on the right side for once.
I went through the process of consulting my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party and in the shadow Cabinet before expressing my view on the Floor of the House. I made it clear that I was expressing a personal view. I hope that my hon. Friends will support me, but they all have a free vote.
Mr. Beith: I am delighted to hear that. The hon. Gentleman could not have been here for Prime Minister's Question Time, when I got quite worked up about the issue which has been occupying the House for most of the day. The hon. Gentleman made an unnecessary and gratuitous remark.
The Chairman of the Procedure Committee said that it was all part of a package. He said, in effect, "This is a restriction on private Members, but it is part of a package." One must be careful about suspicious packages, and we have been given plenty of advice to that effect. This package is particularly suspicious because it contains matters about which hon. Members were not originally aware and which go far beyond its original purpose.
It is also a package with an item missing. When the Procedure Committee decided on the package, it had before it an amendment for which five of the Committee had voted, including those who had voted for the other portions of the package. That amendment would have provided that as part of the deal private Members would have a limited version of the opportunity that Governments have to extend the time available for Bills that they put before the House. It was suggested that that should happen, not on a Friday—when there is the fear that it may be difficult for hon. Members, such as me, from distant constituencies, to be present—Monday, so that private Members would have an opportunity to suspend the 10 o'clock rule in the way that the Government suspend it every day, and as they are doing today.
The Government must not complain, for on the Order Paper today is a motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule so that they may have time to have the Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Bill considered. Five of the 11 members of the Procedure Committee wished to say that private Members should have that opportunity in a limited form on a Monday, but that is not in the package because it was defeated by six votes to five. As a result, it has become a notably unbalanced package.
We shall not vote on this issue tonight. We shall vote on the issue about ten-minute Bills on Budget day, which seems to be a product of televising the proceedings in the House of Commons. I was in favour of televising our proceedings, although that may have given rise to some odd results, and being embarrassed about having a ten-minute Bill moved on Budget day seems to be one of them.
I cannot work up any enthusiasm for the idea that we must deny hon. Members the chance of bringing forward a Bill on that day. I accept that it is not the loss of a slot, that it is fair to private Members overall, and that such opportunity will be available on the following Monday. But I cannot bring myself to rescue the Government from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) who added to the proceedings usefully when he brought forward budget proposals of his own.
488
On the motion that the ten-minute Bill procedure should change and that we should move to a ballot, instead of hon. Members having to queue, a finely balanced argument exists. There is something to be said for endeavour and for procedures that reflect an hon. Member's determination to raise an issue. People outside the House do not realise how much we have become dependent on the lottery and the ballot.
Most of our constituents imagine that we raise issues in the House because of our preparedness to get stuck in and because we are determined to speak out and say our piece. Up to a point that is the case, but it is not the case for many things, including private Members' Bills, motions, questions to the Prime Minister and questions to individual Ministers. These are all a lottery, a ballot, but the ten-minute Bill procedure is down to endeavour. The endeavour may, however, become rather disproportionate when it involves hon. Members having to occupy sleeping bags for three or four days. Nevertheless, I consider it to be a finely balanced issue.
When compared with the motions that will come before the House later, the issue on which we will vote tonight does not seem to raise great excitement. A whole shift in the balance of power between the Government and private Members over the opportunity to invite the House to consider our procedures is a fundamental change which is undesirable and should not arise simply because one incident caused some argument and controversy at the time.
7 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I, too, am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for agreeing not to move all the motions that have been tabled. The time allowed is, in any case, totally insufficient when we are sweeping away private Members' rights, some of which date back to 1927. So I am grateful to him for agreeing to postpone four of the debates. The result is that I am able to support the one motion, but I hope that when the various issues return to the House, adequate time for debate will be provided.
I make that point particularly to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of Back-Benchers' rights. We should not have such sweeping motions, five all bunched together, in such a confined space of time. My right hon. and learned Friend will have taken account of the fact that during business questions and in this debate substantial feeling has been expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House about the way in which the motions could be ill-advised. We must debate them thoroughly and reach proper conclusions.
It is unfortunate that the motion is in the name of the Leader of the House rather than in the name of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. Although we are to have a free vote— must be as we are concerned with procedure and Back-Benchers' rights—it stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend, there is bound to be moral pressure on many hon. Members to support the motion. Great as is my respect for the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the moral pressure on hon. Members would be somewhat less if the motions stood in his name.
I am happy to agree with the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but I

489
dissent strongly on motions Nos. 1 and 5. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House inadvertently misled us when he said that it was a choice between a ballot, which is a parliamentary euphemism for a lottery, and queueing. That is not the question. The problems that arose last year with queueing did not arise as a result of private Members' initiatives. No private Member queues for four or five days. Private Members were queueing quite happily for a reasonable time to get a Bill. I speak from personal experience. As my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee kindly pointed out, I have not been here long, but even in that time I have managed to get two ten-minute Bills by queueing only for a couple of hours.
The procedure got out of hand—and the house should understand this—when the Government and Opposition Front Benches became involved and decided to turn the matter into an inter-party competition. The procedure then became similar to the procedure for Prime Minister's questions when all hon. Members are reminded to go in for it. It became similar to the way we sign the book of motions, when hon. Members stand in the Lobbies exhorting other hon. Members to sign them. Suddenly, the whole procedure was no longer a Back-Bench initiative, but an inter-party competition. If that element is taken out of the procedure and it is returned to the Back Benchers, we shall not be queueing for four or five days any more than we have in the past. Had this matter been left to the good sense of the Back-Bench Members none of this would have arisen in the first place. My right hon. and learned Friend has not given the House the whole picture—inadvently, I am sure. However, I have described the background against which the issue should be examined.
At present, hon. Members queue for ten-minute Bills and obtain them by initiative. It is the only remaining slot not governed by a draw from a hat or by having to rely on being lucky in a raffle. If an hon. Member wants to raise a pressing piece of constituency business, a conscience issue or another matter, all he has to do is to have a bit of endurance and initiative. It is deeply offensive that we should be told that one of the reasons for changing the system is that the Clerks object to us sitting in their room. For whom does this House exist? Is it for the benefit of the Clerks or of hon. Members? It is for the benefit of hon. Members, so that argument should carry no weight with us. If we queue in the Clerks' room for a fortnight—which I have never seen done—that is our right and it should not matter what they say.
I shall inevitably be seen as having a specific interest in motion No. 1 inasmuch as I have used the procedure. That is true, but although that procedure has been used twice on a pro-life issue, the fact remains that it is open to be used on any issue. It cannot be abused in quite the way that other motions are abused because it depends on an extremely rare combination of circumstances. First, an hon. Member must have a Bill sufficiently high in the ballot to avoid accusations of blatant queue-jumping. If his Bill is Nos. 18, 19 or 20, this procedure will not commend itself greatly to the House. Secondly, either he or a sympathiser must draw first place in the ballot for private Members' motions on a Friday. Thirdly, the sympathiser must do that in time to influence the passage of the Bill. It is no good coming first in the ballot two months after the
490
Bill has failed and all other Bills are on Report. The combination of circumstances is so rare that it is not surprising that it has happened only twice in the last decade. Do we need to take a sledgehammer to crack something that occurs only twice in a decade? Statistically it is not worth bothering about.
There is a distinction between that procedure and the procedure for petitions and by-election writs. If an hon. Member decides to move a by-election writ, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did, there is nothing that the House can do to prevent him under the present rules. He can stand up, move his writ and talk about the Yorkshire weather for three hours five minutes, and there is nothing that the House can do to prevent it. If 500 other hon. Members want to debate the alternative business, which is first on the Order Paper, there is still nothing that they can do. If 50 hon. Members decide to move petitions, there is nothing that the House can do to stop them. But if an hon. Member comes to the House and asks for extra time, the House can say "No". The difference is between the House having the final say and private Members being able to use their own initiative to be obstructive.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is nothing to prevent a Back-Bench Member from moving the closure on a speech for moving a petition. That is perfectly in order.
Miss Widdecombe: That is wrong, as I found to my own cost and from my own experience. Until it has been proposed and until the proposer has sat down, an hon. Member cannot move the closure. The House has no sanction over that, but it has a sanction over a private Member who wants to obtain extra time. A private Member may want to do that for two reasons. First, he or she may consider that his or her Bill is so vital that the House must grant it extra time. If the House decides against that, the House can say "No" and no harm is done, except that that hon. Member has wasted a whole morning in putting forward a motion with which the House has no sympathy. Secondly, an hon. Member may ask the House for redress. Perhaps the hon. Member has been subject to considerable filibustering, to disruptive tactics or to an ingenious use of parliamentary devices. That hon. Member may come to the House to say, "I know that we have a majority for this Bill. That has already been demonstrated on Second Reading. I have been prevented from proceeding and I ask the House for justice." The House can still say "No". That is the point of motion No. 1. The House already has sanctions, and there is no need to extend them.
The issue of a low vote on Fridays has been raised. My right hon. and learned Friend knows what happens here on Fridays. If there is a very unpopular motion or Bill, a low vote will not enable it to proceed. Some hon. Member who is as well endowed with eloquence as the hon. Member for Bolsover will talk all morning, thereby forcing a closure motion. But if fewer than 100 hon. Members vote, that closure cannot be carried. An unpopular Bill or motion cannot be carried on a low vote on a Friday. The case advanced today has been made on a set of false assumptions that bear no relation to what happens here, to what has gone wrong with queueing for ten-minute Bills, to what goes on when the House can say "No" to a request for extra time or to what happens on Friday when a low vote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) knows well, can be fatal to a Bill.

491
This is a serious assault on Back-Bench time. In 1927, one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, ruled that it was not in the specific competence of the Government to move motions relating to time and additional time, or to move any motion relating to the business of the House. He said that it was down to any hon. Member,
"providing he can find the time to do so."
At present, the only way that he can find time to do so is through the most uncertain process of a ballot, which is a euphemism for a lottery. Are we going to take even that small, pathetic, last little hope away from Back-Bench Members? Are not the motions really about the balance of power between the Executive and Back-Bench Members? Motions Nos. 1 and 5 do not protect Private Members' time, but reduce our already very small rights still further.
6.49 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I agree with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) about the balance of power between the two Front Benches and the Back Benches. During the 20 years that I have been here, there have been several instances when, because of Back-Bench activity, the two Front Benches have got together and managed to find a system to enable them to stop the limited power of the Back Benches.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) talked about the Consolidated Fund Bill. That was a classic. We used to be able to keep the Government up. We once managed to prevent the Secretary of State for the Environment from carrying out the important policy measure of selling off old peoples' bungalows. The Government measure had to be brought back, but it was not until much later. What happened? The Front Benches got together and decided to curtail Back-Bench activity. Now the Consolidated Fund Bill finishes at 9 o'clock, by order, as a result of the changes that took place.
Such changes cannot be good for any Back Bencher. That power was used by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when the Labour party was in government. He and his mates used it successfully one morning. We understand that such Back-Bench activity can take place whichever party is in power.
I oppose all five motions. I will not pick and choose. Unlike the hon. Lady, I think that we should oppose all five, because they are part of a package, as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), said.
When the Adjournment motion is debated in the summer and at Christmas, hon. Members can raise matters concerning their constituencies or whatever. The practice used to be that if an hon. Member went on beyond three hours, the Government had to have a majority of 100 to closure the debate. If the Government did not have a majority of 100, we carried on. What was wrong with that?
But what happened? The Government said, "It is terribly bad having to keep 100 people here a day before the hols. Would it not be a good idea to get together and finish the debate after three hours, by an order of the House?" My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) joined me and, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on one occasion in voting against the Government. It would be interesting to look at Hansard—
Mr. Don Dixon: I did not.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says that he did not.
Mr. Dixon: I am not joining my hon. Friend tonight.
Mr. Skinner: That suggests that my hon. Friend did join us on the other occasion. We voted against the Government because we felt that it was necessary to stop the two Front Benches joining together and taking away Back-Bench opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has a point. He says that these are only minor things, and that we need much bigger changes. If the Government Front Bench, together with the Opposition Front Bench, said that they intended to reform the House of Commons lock, stock and barrel, by having full-time Members and stopping moonlighting and boozing, by clocking on and clocking off and starting at a proper time, that would be all right.
I would not mind coming to work before the streets are aired. Some of us used to work like that before we came here, so it would not be hard for us to get here at 9 o'clock. We used to be at work at 6 o'clock in the morning. Such reforms would give more power to Back Benchers. Sadly, we are living not in that world but in a world that has been fashioned by the nobs and snobs of yesteryear. This is a quaint little place, based on the Eton debating society. We could choose not to come in; we could say that it is not for us, or we can learn the rules and destabilise. That is what I have been doing for about 20 years. I am not keen on throwing all that experience away.
Mr. Graham Allen: I hope that my hon. Friend is not saying that he has a vested interest in preserving the present system.
Mr. Skinner: No. I have already made the point that I want to see changes, but only a few of us are keen on developing a system of full-time Members of Parliament and proper hours. I get the impression that things will not change before I leave the House, so I have to use the system. That is why I oppose these intrusions on Back-Bench activity. I am pleased that the Leader of the House has caught on to the idea that it would be good if he managed not to upset everybody. That is why he is moving only one motion tonight, the one relating to Budget day.
If the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure wanted to bring in a package, why did he not propose the curtailment of some activities that are not liked by the elite, but at the same time give Back Benchers other rights? We could have had 10 motions instead of five—five to curtail activities and five to give Back Benchers more opportunities. For instance, the Government might have proposed that Front-Bench speeches should not last more than 20 minutes. Part of the total package might have been extra Adjournments for Back-Bench Members.
Sir Peter Emery: We have suggested that.
Mr. Skinner: It is not in the package; I cannot see it.
Sir Peter Emery: It is in our report.
Mr. Skinner: Oh, it is in a report. It is buried in a report; it is as deep as that. The hon. Gentleman used his diving skill to bury it. I am talking about the package that is before the House.
Hon. Members know that the reason for the five new measures is mainly the television cameras. They are all about regulations for the cameras. Everywhere the television cameras have gone, they have managed to

493
fashion the activities that they screen. We now have football matches starting at five past 3 on a Sunday. Why? Because it suits television. On occasions, horse racing is stopped because it is not synchronised with a rugby league match.
The reason the Government want to tidy up the procedure is to make sure that the television authorities know what is happening on a Friday and to ensure that there will not be extra activity. The Government do not want ten-minute Bills before the Budget, because it is not nice for the Chancellor. They do not want such activity. That is wrong. Why should we give in to the television moguls?
Not all the motions relate to Fridays, but the Friday bit is important for the Leader of the House. He has latched on quickly. He has been gallivanting round the world, but this is not the United Nations. As Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to come here regularly at half past 3 and has to stay late at night. It suddenly dawned on him that he has to be here on a Friday as well. One thing he can do is make sure that he does not need 100 hon. Members here on a Friday too often. What does he do? He says that he will curtail the activities of hon. Members. So part of the package is to make the task of the Government easier.
On the question of queueing for ten-minute Bills, I suggest that the Leader of the House should have a site meeting before he changes the procedure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can go with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) when he is queueing for a Bill to give pensioners a better lot. He can get his sleeping bag, a little television set and his sandwiches.
Mr. Corbyn: No drink.
Mr Skinner: No, no drink. If the Leader of the House does that, he will get a better picture of what takes place.
The hon. Member for Maidstone was upset about moving writs and so on. She will be surprised to learn that I am not against the idea of hon. Members using the opportunity to combine a motion and a Bill. There may be occasions when the procedure is not right, but not on the subject on which the hon. Lady used it, nor on the one on which Enoch Powell used it. I do not think the House wanted the hon. Lady's Bill; otherwise, hon. Members would not have let me get away with what I did. By and large, most hon. Members said, "It is not a bad idea, because we would only be here on Saturday and Sunday; Skinner is saving us the weekend."
If an hon. Member had an important case and got a high place, not No. 7 but No. 2, the Bill would go through. One Bill goes through and the other does not. Two more Bills have gone through quickly on the first occasion. That means that three Bills have gone into Committee, but one that has drawn the No. 2 place will have some difficulty because there are already three Bills in Committee.
Hon. Members may say, "That is unfair: there are three Bills in Committee, and the one that has drawn the No. 2 place has not a cat in hell's chance." Two more Bills may get through, and then it is all over. I think that, on an occasion when a Bill suits the majority of hon. Members, the House might decide that it would not be a bad idea if—by a fluke—the motion to get it through was passed. I
494
might not even move a writ to stop it; I might encourage it. There are such occasions, albeit caused by flukes or accidents.
Miss Widdecombe: That happened to Powell's Bill.
Mr. Skinner: It did not, because Powell used a surrogate. Powell's Bill was all about embryo research—
It being Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [26 January].
The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 38.

Division Ho, 62]

[7 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Foster, Derek

Alison, Rt Han Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus

Allason, Rupert

Freeman, Roger

Allen, Graham

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Amess, David

Gill, Christopher

Amos, Alan

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Golding, Mrs Llin

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Goodlad, Alastair

Ashby, David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bardry, Tony

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bellingham, Henry

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bendall, Vivian

Gregory, Conal

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Grist, Ian

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Ground, Patrick

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Boswell, Tim

Hague, William

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bowis, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hartley, Jeremy

Bright, Graham

Harris, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hawkins, Christopher

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

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hind, Kenneth

Buck, Sir Antony

Hordern, Sir Peter

Buckley, George J.

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Butterfill, John

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

Campbell-Savours, D, N.

Howarth, G, (Cannock & B'wd)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Howe, Ht Hon Sir Geoffrey

Carringlon, Matthew

Hughes, Robert G, (Harrow W)

Carttiss, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hunter, Andrew

Chapman, Sydney

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

Irvine, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Irving, Sir Charles

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Jack, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jackson, Robert

Cope, Rt Hon John

Janman, Tim

Cormack, Patrick

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Couch man, James

Key, Robert

Cunningham, Dr John

Kilfedder, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina

King, Roger (B'ham N;thfield)

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

Kirkhope, Timothy

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Knapman, Roger

Day, Stephen

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Devlin, Tim

Knowles, Michael

Dixon, Don

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Dorrell, Stephen

Lang, Ian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lawrence, Ivan

Dover, Den

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Dunn, Bob

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Lightbown, David

Durant, Tony

Lilley, Peter

Eggar, Tim

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Emery, Sir Peter

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fallon, Michael

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Favell, Tony

Maclean, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

McLoughlin, Pal rick

Fookes, Dame Janet

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mans, Keith

Forth, Eric

Maples, John

495

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Snape, Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Spearing, Nigel

Mellor, David

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Michael, Allun

Squire, Robin

Miller, Sir Hal

Stanbrook, Ivor

Morrison, Sir Charles

Steen, Anthony

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Stern, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Slevens, Lewis

Mowlam, Marjorie

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Needham, Richard

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Neubert, Michael

Sumberg, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Summerson, Hugo

Nicholls, Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Norris, Steve

Thompson, D, (Calder Valley)

O'Brien, William

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Thorne, Neil

Oppenheim, Phillip

Thurnham, Peter

Paice, James

Tredinnick, David

Patnick, Irvina

Twinn, Dr Ian

Patten, Rt Hon John

Viggers, Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Pike, Pater L.

Wadeham, Rt Hon John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Powell, William (Corby)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Price, Sir David

Waller, Gary

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wareing, Robert N.

Redwood, John

Warren, Kenneth

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Wheeler, Sir John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Widdecombe, Ann

Rhodes James, Robert

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Riddick, Graham

Wilshire, David

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Winterton, Nicholas

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wood, Timothy

Ryder, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Sack villa, Hon Tom

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Mr. John M Taylor and

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Sims, Roger

496

NOES

Alton, David

Kennedy, Charles

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Livingstone, Ken

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Maclennan, Robert

Beith, A. J.

Madden, Max

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Meale. Alan

Canavan, Dennis

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Nellist, Dave

Corbett, Robin

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Cryer, Bob

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dalyell, Tam

Salmond, Alex

Fearn, Ronald

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Fisher, Mark

Taylor. Teddy (S'end E)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Gordon, Mildred

Wallace, James

Hinchliffe, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Wray, Jimmy

Howells, Geraint

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hoyle, Doug

Mr. Dennis Skinner and

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That no notice may be given under Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) for a day on which Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared his intention of opening his Budget; but

(i) notices proposed to be given for such day, and

(ii) notices so given for a day in respect of which such intention is subsequently declared,

shall be treated as having been given for the first Monday on which the House shall sit after the Budget is opened, and may be proceeded with on that day as though it were a Tuesday or a Wednesday.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Motion No. 5? Not moved.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
7.13 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The motion on the Order Paper is
"That the Bill be considered upon this day six months."
If my hon. Friends and I are to be honest we will admit that our reason for tabling that motion is that we do not want the Bill to be considered further. It is our contention that the House should not be considering it at all. Hon. Members may recall that it was given its Second Reading on 6 June 1989 and that on that occasion all the comments were undoubtedly to the effect that it should not be allowed to make any further progress. Unfortunately, as always, the vote that followed a lengthy and well-informed debate was carried largely by those who had neither listened to the debate nor knew anything whatsoever about the subject.
It is a matter for great regret that we are back in the House considering the Bill further. As a piece of legislation it is fundamentally flawed. It tramples on ancient and well-established rights. It attempts to take from Havering borough council rights which were established by royal writ and which it has enjoyed, uninterrupted, for over 700 years. I understand that the charter markets in the constituencies of 284 hon. Members may be similarly affected if the Bill is successful. It will undoubtedly set a precedent for the challenging of ancient market rights through the private Bill procedure. I submit that that should not be allowed or encouraged.
I want to draw attention to a statement, copies of which I understand the promoters of the Bill sent to all hon. Members. I want to go through the statement paragraph by paragraph and explain why I consider that it is misleading in respect of a number of issues. Of course, I accept that it was not the promoters' intention to mislead hon. Members.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the concern of many authorities in whose areas there are charter markets. Does the document to which he is referring really deal with that matter? I am sure that everyone recognises that that is the particular concern about the procedure that has been used throughout. It is my impression that the document avoids that issue. Certainly it does not deal with it in great detail.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I go through the document it will be clear that that whole issue is not mentioned. Anyone reading the document would get the impression that this was a simple matter between Redbridge and Havering councils alone, with no deeper meaning, and capable of no wider interpretation.
In paragraph 1 the promoters say:
"The Bill is promoted by the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge…It would authorise the establishment of a market on a site near the town centre of Ilford."
Paragraph 2 says:
"The council in 1980 adopted, following a long public local inquiry, a Local Plan for the Ilford Town Centre entitled the 'Ilford Town Centre Action Area plan'…In accordance with the proposals contained in that Plan the Council has brought about the revitalisation of the Ilford Town Centre by
498
the construction of a relief road diverting the A118 around the Town Centre, providing service roads and the pedestrianisation of part of the High Road."
No doubt hon. Members will wish to join me in congratulating the Ilford council on doing so and will wish it every success in its endeavours to create a pleasant environment and a good shopping centre. It is, however, my experience of shopping centres around the country that they are not made very much more environmentally attractive if market stalls are placed right in the centre of them. But, so far as any planning permission application is concerned, that may be a matter for Ilford borough council to decide.
In paragraph 3 the promoters continue:
"A pleasant environment for residents, workers and shoppers has been created in the Ilford Town Centre. This has led to considerable investment in the Town Centre and the Prudential Corporation and the Norwich Union Insurance Group are currently creating a £100 million retail development, known as the 'Exchange at Ilford', which will provide 51,000 square metres of new shopping floorspace together with a 1,200-space car park."
Again I say to the hon. Members for that area that that is marvellous, but, with this wonderful shopping centre, I cannot believe that the addition of about 80 market stalls will make or break the Ilford plan.
Then we come to more contentious matters. In paragraph 4 Ilford borough council says:
"The Plan proposed the development of one site in the Ilford Town Centre for 'substantial shopping development, combined with an expanded and more attractive covered retail market which could be a vital feature of the improved shopping centre'. Since the adoption of the Plan some 250 persons have indicated a desire to trade as stallholders in the Ilford Town Centre. The Council are of the opinion that a market established on the proposed site which it owns at the Ilford Town Centre would provide an additional and attractive facility for shoppers which will complement the 'Exchange at Ilford' development. The Council has the support in this matter of the Redbridge Chamber of Trade and Commerce, the Ilford Trader Association and both the Prudential Corporation and the Norwich Union Insurance Group."
Mr. Robin Squire: Does my hon. Friend have any information about the support that the proposal has within the council itself? Is the council united on it?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am afraid that I cannot help my hon. Friend on that matter. However, an intervention from one of the hon. Members for Ilford might assist us. If either of them gets an opportunity to speak in this debate perhaps he will be able to deal with the point.
The question that I should particularly like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), because I asked it on Second Reading and have not yet had a reply, is whether he or his council know how many of the 250 persons who have stated their desire to trade at Ilford already trade at Havering. That seems an extremely pertinent point. If all that the Bill succeeds in doing is to remove some 250 stallholders—or thereabouts—from Havering five and a half miles across to Redbridge, I cannot believe that it will be vastly in the interests of the population of either of our two boroughs, or of anybody else who lives anywhere near the vicinity.
With the ease of travel that we have today, there can be no doubt that many Redbridge residents shop in Romford and enjoy the facilities of the Romford market, which has been established for so long. Hon. Members who were present on Second Reading will recall that I said that ease of travel must go against the promoters of the Bill, whereas

499
they were praying it in aid as a reason for allowing a proliferation of markets. In fact, it does nothing of the kind. The fact that people can now travel with substantial ease for considerable distances to do their shopping must be an argument against allowing too many market centres to spring up.
The whole pattern of trading in this country is moving towards people shopping in one place for everything that they wish to buy—at one time and in one place. Indeed, they often drive substantial distances to do so. My constituency has been suffering for some time because of some of the out-of-town supermarkets that are now being developed all around the country. People get into their cars and often drive happily for 10 or 15 miles to get to one of those places to do their shopping, and then return home. Our shopping centres and the centres of our towns are already under substantial threat. In my opinion, a proliferation of market centres, as proposed by the Bill, would undermine the security of the shopping centres in middle-of-town developments and would not be at all helpful. If Ilford manages to get the House's permission to proceed with the Bill, it may well live to regret it.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should be grateful if he would deal with my point about where the 250 traders who have been applying to him and to his council for a place in the new proposed development come from. I very much hope that the sponsors have taken the trouble to do that research because they will be doing Havering borough council and the House less than justice if, seven months after that point was first raised, they still cannot give us an answer.
I continue with the promoters' letter. Paragraph 5 states:
"Planning permission will be sought for the establishment of the market if the Bill is enacted."
I ask the House to pay particular attention to paragraph 6 because it is wholly misleading and gives an impression that is quite different from that reflected by the facts, and probably quite different from that which the promoters intended to give. I shall read it before commenting. It states:
"The law of markets provides a protection for any existing market franchise against another, competing, market being established within 6⅔ miles. The London Borough Council of Havering has, it is understood, two markets at Romford which are within that distance, and it would be in contravention of the protection to establish the proposed market at Ilford. The London Borough Council of Havering also has a third market at Romford operated by them in the exercise of their powers under Part III of the Food Act 1984. If the Council established a market pursuant to that power it would not be in contravention of the protection afforded by that Act although it would not be immune from challenge, under common law, from a franchise market. The Romford Markets contain approximately 600 pitches each and they are held on different days (Wednesday, Friday and Saturday)."
That is not an accurate reflection of the position in Havering at Romford market. There is one market site in Romford. It does, indeed, have 600 or so pitches, but to give or attempt to give the impression that there are three separate market sites is wholly misleading and has certainly misled some of my hon. Friends to whom I have been speaking. One of my hon. Friends, to whom I was speaking a couple of moments ago, and who I had hoped would support my motion, said that he had read the document and, having seen paragraph 6, felt that Ilford borough council had a good point. He suggested that Havering was being extremely mean, having three existing
500
markets, to wish to deny Ilford a smaller one five and half miles away. But that is not true. Romford has one marketplace. It holds three markets in that one marketplace on three different days. That is not at all the same thing as the impression that has been given in the document.
Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton): May I ask for further clarification on that point? Do I take it that the three days on which the market is held in Ilford are referred to in the document submitted to support the Bill as three markets? Furthermore, do I take it that the market at Ilford, with its 600 stalls, is an open market?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, yes, it is an open market. In answer to his first point, again yes, there is one position of 600 pitches, but the three markets referred to are the three different days on which a market is held on that site. My understanding is that quite a lot of those pitches are occupied by the same stallholders over the three days. To refer to that as three separate markets and to give the distinct impression that there are three markets in different places, each with 600 pitches, is wholly misleading. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South would like to intervene, I am sure that he would agree that that statement does not reflect the true position and I hope that it did not intend to convey the impression that it undoubtedly does.
Mr. Vivian Bendall (Ilford, North): Is it true to say that the same stallholders are involved on each of the three days? Does none of the stalls vary?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend must have misheard me. I did not say that. I said that the market is held on one site of 600 pitches. There are three markets. The reason for the confusion is that the markets are set up under different rights. I believe that one was originally set up under the writ, one under an Act and one because of long practice. Therefore, it is technically correct to say that they constitute three different markets—I do not argue with that—but the impression given in the document that three separate markets are operating is wrong. There is one marketplace at which the same 600 pitches are used three times a week, to constitute three markets.
In specific answer to my hon. Friend's question, although the market is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) as I understand it, some stallholders are there two days a week and others are there three days a week. Many are there only one day a week. Therefore, it is a balance and a mix. I am not saying that the same people are there every day; I am saying that we cannot multiply 600 by three and come to 1,800 traders using the market, because that would be equally misleading.
Mr. Bendall: Will my hon. Friend further clarify the number of people who hold licences in the market?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sorry; my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) was whispering in my ear and I could not quite catch my hon. Friend's question. Will he repeat it?
Mr. Bendall: Yes. I wondered how many people actually hold licences at Romford market.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question because I do not know. However, I can probably find out before the end of the evening if my hon. Friend wishes me to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford is present in the Chamber, but unfortunately is barred from taking part in the debate because he is a Minister. I know that the fact that he is barred is as much a matter of regret to him as it is to me and, I am sure, to the rest of the House, because what he would have said, had he been allowed to say it, would have proved invaluable to the debate. I am afraid that I shall have to do my poor best to fill in the gaps that he cannot fill himself.
Paragraph 7 of the document states:
"Havering Borough Council petitioned against the Bill, and the issues between the two Councils were dealt with by a Committee of your Honourable House. Evidence was brought by the two parties and the Committee decided on a compromise, whereby the Bill was allowed to proceed but certain amendments were made for the benefit of Havering Borough Council, including special provision for compensation."
That is true and I do not dispute that that is exactly what happened. However, I make two points on it. First, although Havering borough council was pleased to be able to get some concessions out of Ilford council, which have certainly assisted our position as I shall show a little later, it did not accept that the Bill should be proceeded with at all; nor did it ever give the impression that it was supportive of it. The fact is that Havering borough council will be damaged by the passing of the Bill, as will the 284 other constituencies that I have already mentioned. The principle that charter markets have a right to operate unchallenged will be grievously breached if the Bill proceeds through the House. That would not be a good thing.
The impression given by paragraph 7, as I read it, is that Havering borough council and Ilford have now made friends and are happy to proceed with the Bill as it is now constituted. That is not true. Havering borough council is happier with the terms than it was but it is not happy with the way in which the Bill is proceeding or that it should proceed at all.
My second point on paragraph 7 is extremely relevant to our proceedings tonight. The Chair will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the House is by no means bound by any agreement reached in Committee and that any decisions reached by the Committee are subject to the approval of the House and to Parliament as a whole. Therefore, we are not bound to accept any compromise that may have been reached in Committee. I do not argue with the decisions made by the Committee. They improve the Bill rather than damage it and improve the position of Havering borough council. But it is important to stress that if people differ from the view of the Committee, they are entitled to make their point and, if necessary, force the matter to a Division.
I have dealt with the promoters' outline of the case. I believe that it was misleading. I hope that my hon. Friends who have read it will also have taken the trouble to read the Second Reading debate where they will find a much truer account of what is behind the Bill and its implications. I know that they probably have not done so, and I regret that it is unlikely that we shall obtain the support that we should have been obtained if they fully understood the matter.
502
Having read the promoters' letter, some of my hon. Friends must wonder why Havering borough council persists in opposing the Bill. Before I deal with that, I should like to give the promoters credit for the concessions that they have made. Specifically, I draw the attention of the House to the concession on compensation. On Second Reading I and other hon. Members spoke about compensation. The original proposal was outrageously inadequate. I should not do justice to the subject if I did not refer to the original clause to enable us better to understand the changes that have been made in Committee.
Originally, compensation was dealt with in clause 4(2) and (3). It read:
"The measure of compensation shall be the capitalised value of the estimated loss of income to the claimant from persons trading at his market resulting from the continuance or establishment of a market under this Act.
Compensation under this Section shall carry interest from the expiry of six weeks from the date on which the claim was received by the Council.
Except as otherwise agreed by the Council, compensation under this Section shall not be payable except upon a claim made in writing to the Council within three months of the commencement of this Act."
It was most unfortunate that the Bill was allowed to reach Second Reading containing such a clause. I do not want to labour the point that I made on Second Reading but the compensation provision was absurd. People would have had to put in a claim for compensation before the market at Ilford had opened. The idea that a proper assessment of the resulting loss could have been made at that stage was absurd. It was wrong to ask the House to consider the Bill in that form.
I am glad to say that the position is now better. Compensation under clause 4 has been substantially improved. Clause 4(2)(a) says:
"The measure of compensation shall be—

(i) in the case of the Council of the London Borough of Havering or the owner from time to time of the right to hold Romford Market, in each year ten per cent. of the net profit accruing to any person holding a market under this Act (`the market operator') from that market measured by deducting from the market operator's turnover relating to the market (exclusive of Value Added Tax) any expenses defrayed by the market operator which are wholly and exclusively attributable to the market and not being—

(A) any payment (whether by way of rent or otherwise) made by the market operator to the Council for the right to hold the market; or

(B) in the nature of capital expenses written off to revenue; or

(c) any payment in respect of the compensation or interest payable under this section; or

(D) taxation; or

(ii) in any other case the capitalised value of the estimated loss of income to the claimant from persons trading at his market."

To summarise the difference, Havering council, which previously was not to be compensated, will now receive a 10 per cent. return from the revenue gained by traders who open their market stalls at Ilford. That is of substantial assistance to Havering borough council. I applaud the inclusion of that compensation in the Bill.
The compensation available to those who trade at Romford has also been improved. It is in much the same form as in the original Bill except that it will now be payable under clause 4(3)(b):

503
"Except as may otherwise be agreed by the Council, compensation under subsection (2)(a)(ii) above shall not be payable except upon a claim made in writing to the Council within 24 months from the market commencement date".
That is much more satisfactory. First, we have a two-year period in which to assess the damage and, secondly, and more important, it will not commence until after the market is opened. At least now we shall have a period during which properly to assess the loss to those trading at Romford.
I do not know—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) can assist the House—how the assessment can be made while people are trading both at Romford and Ilford. Perhaps consideration should be given to that. There must be a computation to assess the changes made in those circumstances or, indeed, if someone moves his stall from Romford to Ilford. No doubt that will come up again later in the debate.
Havering borough council objects to the Bill for two reasons. I have already mentioned the first. The second is that the Bill goes against the way in which legislation should be amended. It is wrong that the position of charter markets, which exist not only in my constituency but at 284 other sites, should be eaten away piecemeal by private Bills.
On only one previous occasion has the position been changed. That was at Bexley and in that case it was done by agreement between two councils. There was no conflict or dispute. No one came to the House and attempted to take away the rights enjoyed by a borough without that borough's consent. I can see no objection to a private Bill if both parties agree to it, even when ancient rights are being subjugated by Acts of Parliament. But when there is a conflict, when the borough that is to be penalised does not consent, and when there is a substantial difference between the two parties, as in this case, it is wrong for the private Bill procedure to be used to make a fundamental change in the application of the law of the land.
A Royal Commission looked at the position of charter markets 98 years ago. It concluded that they should be altered. It said that it should he possible to create more markets within areas covered by the charter market rights. It said that the whole system should be considered and changed by Parliament. That was 98 years ago and nothing has been done.
If successive Governments believed that charter markets should be abolished and that a change should be made, it should have been done by Parliament. A Bill should have been brought before the House and debated. We could have gone to the root of the matter and decided whether it was right that ancient rights such as those enjoyed by Havering council should be abolished and whether we should operate a different system. That would be quite legitimate. But to accept the system and not to act on the proposals of the Royal Commission for nearly a century and then to come to the House again and again to erode the position of the charter markets that each borough has enjoyed is not the way in which private Bills should be used. They should not be used to further the interests of one borough or another. For that reason, I hope that the House will join us in wishing to defer consideration of the Bill for a further six months.
7.39 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). I have read the Second Reading debate in Hansard, but my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that my interpretation of it is different from his. On that occasion, the Division truly reflected the arguments that had been advanced.
My hon. Friend has made a number of points and I shall not detain the House by re-reading the statement because he has done so for me. I shall attempt to address some of the points that he has made and, if there are further questions, I shall do my best, with the leave of the House, to answer those later.
My hon. Friend asked about the 250 applicants for the 80 spaces in the proposed Redbridge market. He cannot have much experience of market traders or he would appreciate that they are anxious to retain some sense of anonymity and they do not always want to disclose exactly what business interests they have elsewhere. When they apply for a stall they are, as a rule, unwilling to say what other stalls they have and where they are located. Therefore, keeping accurate statistics of how many stalls each trader has is not practical. If my hon. Friend consults his local authority, he will find that it does not have an accurate record of the 600 stallholders in its market.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall check to see whether my local authority has such information. However, the situation is slightly different in a market that has been established for a long time compared with one that is being established now. Presumably, Ilford council will license the market holders and apply some sort of criteria to determine whether somebody is a fit and proper person to have a stall. What criteria is the local authority to apply other than whether people have been trading elsewhere, whether they have a criminal past and other necessary information?
Mr. Thorne: The local authority will make inquiries about the desirability of each applicant, but it will not necessarily be able to discover the business interests in other markets of other members of an applicant's family. My hon. Friend will find that Romford market has many more than 600 stallholders as it meets three days a week and, by his own admission, some stallholders have more than one stall and some go only once a week. It will not be possible to discover exactly what other business interests those stallholders have.
Mr. Bendall: Is my hon. Friend aware that many stallholders go to many markets around London? They could be at Bexley on Monday, Bromley on Tuesday and Romford on Wednesday.
Mr. Thorne: Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster does himself and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) an injustice in suggesting that Romford market is likely to empty out into Ilford. I have no such fear. Redbridge is asking for an 80-stall market and there is no way that that could absorb the 600-stall market that is enjoyed at Havering.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not want to give the impression that Redbridge will empty Romford of stalls. It will do nothing of the kind. The limit of 80 stalls has been heavily negotiated and it was not present on Second

505
Reading. But even though it will not empty Romford, it will damage it. If I am right that many stallholders who will attend Redbridge come from Romford and so will move, that will undoubtedly have an impact on Romford market, quite apart from taking a lot of the clientele.
Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is taking a pessimistic view. These markets are popular and there is no reason why Romford should suffer any great loss. I have patronised Romford market for many years. I have visited it since I was a schoolboy and my impression is one of a vibrant market. In days gone by one of its main purposes, if not the main purpose, was as a cattle market. That is the reason for the limit of six and two thirds miles. That was considered to be one third of the distance that cattle could be driven in a working day. That allowed them one third of the day to get the cattle to the market, one third of the day for them to be at the market on sale, and another third of the day for them to be driven back. That is rather out of date and in this day and age one should be working on an entirely different basis.
Mr. O'Brien: Has there been any contact with the National Market Traders Federation which has a code of practice for establishing markets and deciding who shall operate in them? The point about 250 applicants is relevant. Does Redbridge intend to obtain permission for the market and then hand it on to a third party who will operate it as a private market?
Mr. Thorne: As far as I am aware, Redbridge has not yet decided whether it wants to operate the market itself or to pass responsibility for it to a private operator. That decision will be taken if Redbridge attains an Act of Parliament to implement it. The National Market Traders Federation has been in touch with all Members of Parliament and I understand that it has also been in touch with the local authority. How far the discussions have gone, I do not know. However, it is not a regulatory body, rather a membership body, so it does not have any rights of control or nomination as to which traders are suitable. There is a significant difference. On that basis, the advice that it can give is somewhat limited.
Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend accurately said that the limit of six and two thirds miles went back to Roman times but that we had come a long way since then and were due for a change. That may or may not be so. We may be due for a change but, if anything, there would be less loyalty to a particular market today because of the speed of communications. Therefore, it could be argued that the limit needs to be tightened, not loosened.
Mr. Thorne: If we went down that road we would argue that no new supermarkets or any other form of trade should be opened. That is not the line that I would take. There should be the maximum possible choice for shoppers to shop as and when they wish, where they wish.
The figure of six and two thirds is out of date. Another figure would be more appropriate in this day and age. As has been said, it would be quite appropriate for people to complete their shopping in one area. If there is a good shopping centre in Romford and shopping is not confined to the street market, the people who go there to shop will be loyal to that particular shopping area. They can do their market shopping and also their under-cover shopping in
506
department stores and elsewhere. That is what other people would like to do in other areas. It is right and proper that they should be able to do so. If people wanted to go for keenly priced goods, clearly they would want to go to a market with a large number of stalls. One with 600 stalls would be much more attractive than one with 80. An 80-stall market should not and cannot be a threat.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: In their preamble, which I covered at some length, the promoters described Romford market as three markets. As I understand the Bill, in the same equation, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is asking for six markets. He is not asking for 80 stalls but six times 80 because, under the terms of the proposed Act, they are able to open six days a week.
Mr. Thorne: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right. The description of Romford market as three markets reflects the fact that there are three entirely different markets. One was set up by ancient charter, one by a lost prescription of grant and one by the Food Act 1984. That is how the three separate markets were created. They may be on the same site, but anything done in Redbridge would come under the Food Act and would, therefore, be one market.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sorry to intervene again but I must pursue that. Is not my hon. Friend merely being semantic? He says that there will be three separate markets on three days. I accept that, technically, they are three separate markets because they were set up under three separate Acts. However, in reality, the stalls are open three days a week. If my hon. Friend succeeds, in his area 80 stalls will be open six days a week. There will not be 80 stalls but 80 times six and, therefore, the threat to Romford is much greater than the impression that my hon. Friend seeks to give.
Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend has not really researched his local authority's decisions on this matter. Otherwise, he would appreciate that it could apply for markets to be opened on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday as well and could therefore have the other three days under the Food Act if it so wished.
If Romford market were open only under the Food Act, it would have been referred to as one market and would not have had the protection of the six and two thirds miles. Therefore, Redbridge borough council need not have applied to the House for this Act. There is no inconsistency in my argument. The likelihood of 80 stallholders turning up in Redbridge on Monday and Tuesday but not wanting to turn up in Havering is remote.
Mr. Bendall: Will my hon. Friend clarify this point? As I understand it, the six and two thirds miles relates to the charter that granted the cattle market. Is there still a cattle market at Romford?
Mr. Thorne: No, the cattle markets at Romford and Stratford were phased out many years ago. There have not been cattle markets there, to my knowledge, for perhaps 15 or 20 years, or even longer. That is another reason why the figure of six and two thirds is irrelevant.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is important to clarify this matter, as it is deeply significant. If the Bill goes through in its present form, Redbridge borough council will have the right to open 80 stalls, six days a week with 80 different

507
stallholders on each day. In other words, 480 stallholders will be able to operate in Redbridge from Monday to Saturday. Am I right or wrong?
Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but, in practice, it is no more likely that 80 stallholders will apply to have a stall in Redbridge on a Monday than would wish to have a stall in Romford on Monday. Stallholders in Romford have not found it profitable to do so on a Monday. Therefore, there is no likelihood that Redbridge market will be open every day of the week. If it were likely to be profitable for a stallholder to do that, Havering authority, on behalf of Romford, would want to hold markets on other days of the week, in addition to the one day a week on which it is allowed to do so at present under the Food Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster made two other points which I shall deal with. First, he said that 284 charter markets in the country could be under threat. I entirely disagree. It has been necessary for the London borough of Redbridge to come to the House to ask for a special Act for a market within six and two thirds miles. Where those charter markets are a long way from the next town the problem does not arise and there is no threat. Where there are other major towns nearer than six and two thirds miles, quite rightly those other authorities wishing to open a market would have to come to the House for such authority. Clearly it would be wrong and misleading to give the impression that there was any threat to 284 charter markets.
My hon. Friend also talked about compensation. Naturally, this was revised during the passage of the legislation through the Opposed Private Bill Committee which, in its wisdom, decided how compensation could be calculated. The figure of 10 per cent. of the profit was generous bearing in mind, as my hon. Friend has accepted, that there is a conflict on only two days a week. Therefore, 10 per cent. of the total profit seems extremely generous.
The way in which the calculation was made was put into the original Bill, and it went before the Opposed Private Bill Committee which listened to counsel on both sides at great length over many days. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster criticised colleagues and suggested that if only they had listened to all of the Second Reading debate they would clearly have voted in his favour. I do not agree. But by the same logic, had our colleagues listened for many days to arguments put by counsel, instructed by the two local authorities, surely the House would wish to consider the Bill further. I believe that we should do so tonight.
7.57 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: Unlike the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), I believe that there is a danger to the future of established markets if the Bill is allowed to continue in its present form. The danger arises because we shall be dealing piecemeal with an issue that is targeted at markets instead of looking at the position in total. Other authorities, many of which will be influenced by people wanting to develop markets, could follow the same procedure. The very fact that the application by Redbridge has received the attention of the House sets a precedent for future applications.
If we are to be fair and honest in our judgment, we must consider the position of the market traders. They are small business people who often start from nothing and, in many
508
instances, with hard work and some luck develop businesses that can sustain a living for themselves and their families. Market trading is usually a family affair. The only right of a market trader is if he stands his stall in a franchise market. He then has the right, under common law, to be there provided that there is a space available and that he pays the toll.
Under current law, no organisation can set up a market within six and two thirds miles of an existing franchise market. That protects market traders and small business people. It is true that the distance was set by an historic event, but nevertheless there is an inbuilt protection for market traders. The proposed market in Redbridge would be only a short distance from an existing market, so the long-established principles would be broken and there would be serious problems that would be detrimental to the traders at both the existing market and the proposed Redbridge market.
In an intervention I asked the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) whether there had been any consultation. Although I accept that the market traders' organisation is not a regulatory body, at least it looks after the interests of 25,000 or more market traders.
Mr Bendall: Why did not the Food Act 1984 provide the same protection of six and two thirds miles?
Mr. O'Brien: The Act dealt with different circumstances and different principles in the markets. That is why I began my speech by referring to mismatched and piecemeal legislation. We should be considering the whole of the operation of markets and not piecemeal legislation. The 1984 Act was intended to deal with certain matters, as the legislation before us is intended to deal with other matters. That piecemeal consideration of the issue will continue if we agree to this legislation.
The Bill is not necessarily intended to allow the borough of Redbridge to organise a market itself. The hon. Member for Ilford, South said that it had not yet decided whether it would organise the market or whether that would be handed over to a third party. It would be dangerous for the market traders for Redbridge to request permission for a market and then hand it over to a third party. Those traders have experience at the sharp end of private market operators. I have discussed the matter with people who stand market stalls in my constituency, at Ossett and Normanton, and at Wakefield in the neighbouring constituency. They told me how the private operators bring on to the markets their own traders who already have stalls in other markets that are operated by the privateer. That cuts across some of the sacred principles of market traders. The principles involved in the setting of market stalls should have been more fully considered when the Bill was in Committee.
Another important matter is charges for stalls. Unscrupulous operators have been known to ruin a good market by not operating within the broad principles that relate to markets. The Bill does not encourage good practice and it threatens established procedures. The hon. Member for Ilford, South does not agree, but were he to examine the matter in more depth he could conclude only that the Bill is a danger to established markets because it is piecemeal legislation. Franchise markets are an important part of our heritage. For example, the Pontefract market has operated for hundreds of years and goes back to Saxon times.

509
If the House agrees to this legislation, the laws on franchise markets will be threatened. Indeed, that threat is targeted on low-income groups because they depend on the markets for reasonable goods at a price they can afford. We must ask why the Bill is even before the House. The market at Romford is less than six miles from the proposed market at Redbridge. There is no real demand for stalls in that area. I note that 250 applications have been made, but there is nothing to show what sort of trade would be carried on by the applicants. I understand that there is no demand and no waiting list for additional stalls in Romford. That market caters for a number of communities in and around the area, including Redbridge. The evidence submitted to the Committee shows that there is no demand for additional market facilities in the area.
In Committee, it was argued that people without cars or access to public transport could not travel to Romford market. If that is a reason for accepting the Bill, what of rural areas? If there is a demand to develop market trading, it is in rural areas where there is a lack of public transport and where fewer people can afford cars. If a reason for accepting the Bill is that people find it difficult to travel six miles to Romford, Conservative Members in particular should be arguing for more market facilities in their constituencies. There is no substance in the argument for an additional market at Redbridge. The same criterion could apply to every rural area and community throughout the country where people are denied the use of public or personal transport.
The letter accompanying the original applications suggests that Redbridge is to be a covered market which will operate six days a week. In my view, that is merely an extension of a shopping development. I suggest that it would be fairer to the local community to make an application for a store comprising 80 stalls, rather than make one under the guise of it being an open market.
Mr. Squire: Has the hon. Gentleman established from his researches if it would make a difference whether such a store had a roof? Is it the concept of open air versus non open air that is in dispute, or do the walls surrounding a store make all the difference?
Mr. O'Brien: The difference would come if the market were handed over to a third party such as Asda, who could develop it not as a market but as a superstore. The difference between the proposed market at Redbridge and the existing one at Romford is that the latter is an established open market, whereas that at Redbridge will be covered. The application is for 80 stalls because it will be a covered market—a supermarket. It is wrong to consider an application for what is ostensibly an open market when it will, in the main, be developed as a supermarket. I hope that we shall receive honest clarification of the real nature of the application.
Mr. Thorne: The proposed site is a car park over which there is a flyover carrying a road over the railway. The site is only covered inasmuch as it is under a flyover.
Mr. O'Brien: My remarks were based on the letter accompanying the application, which refers to a covered market. If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the only cover provided is a flyover, it will be different from what we understand as a covered market.
510
That is the letter's second misleading statement. The first one was that Romford has three different markets, but the truth is that there is only one market area, comprising the same stalls, but subject to three different Acts of Parliament. For that reason only they are referred to in the supporting letter as three markets, which is most misleading.
I return to my earlier point that, as Redbridge borough council's representatives have given misleading information, the scheme should be more carefully considered. One wonders how many other misleading statements have been made in support of the Bill. I suggest to the Bill's supporters that more consideration should be given before the House agrees to the Bill. The Bill should be deferred so that all the evidence can be analysed properly to see whether it contains any other misleading statements.
I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the motion in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), and of the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), as that would be in the best interests of the House and of the public.
8.17 pm
Mr. Robin Squire: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), and agree strongly with the main thrust of his arguments. To be fair, I must pay tribute also to my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), who is bound by Trappist vows on an occasion such as this. One has heard of the strains and frustrations of office. It is arguable that this evening, one of the more acute forms of frustration is being visited upon my hon. Friend. I only hope that the inadequate way in which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) are dealing with the matter will give him some consolation.
I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who is a genuine long-term friend. We encounter one another occasionally at local events, and I always treasure his company.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, the royal writ governing Romford market has operated for 742 or 743 years I forget which. It also covers markets in nearly half of the constituencies represented by right hon. and hon. Members. Those markets are protected by the operation of common law, which is at the very foundation of our rights. The House should consider carefully any application to vary rights that have existed for that length of time before deciding to alter them. In particular, the private Bill procedure is an extraordinary way to vary common law rights. I shall return to that in the ultimate part of my argument.
It is important that I put the precise viewpoint of the London borough of Havering. I do not intend to touch upon the promoters' statement. That would be unfair to the House, as it has already been covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster and for Ilford, South. It is important that there should be no doubt about the attitude of the London borough of Havering, which is directly affected by the Bill.
I shall quote selectively from a letter from the Havering borough secretary which begins, "Dear Robin"—it is a

511
very friendly borough, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should like to think that your part of the country is similar. The letter states:
"It would be foolish to pretend that the amendments made in Committee do not limit the potential harm to Romford Market from a rival at Ilford. In particular limiting it to not more than 80 stalls on the one identified site is an improvement on the Bill as originally lodged. Nevertheless, the principle remains that Redbridge are using private legislation to override long established Common Law rights … What we put to the committee and suggest is still a sound proposition is that the abolition of rights going back 750 years should not come about as a result of a piecemeal process whereby one piece of private legislation in one area (e.g. Bexley) is succeeded by another (e.g. Redbridge) and so on."
—one might suggest that they are using salami tactics.
The letter continues:
"There is no real difference in the circumstances applicable at Romford Market and those applicable at Common Law markets up and down the Country. Conceding the principle in this Bill must therefore make easier the compulsory extinction of other market rights."
That is demonstrated by the fact that the Bexley London Borough Council Act 1987 has been relied on in part as a precedent by Redbridge, although that Act appears to have come about by some agreement between parties.
The letter states:
"The compensation provisions in the Bill have been substantially rewritten as a result of the committee hearing."
I shall return to compensation in a moment, as it would not be fair to read out a long letter to the House. However, the letter continues:
"It might be helpful to remember that the deposited Bill (i.e. the version we petitioned against) allowed for a market to be established by Redbridge anywhere within a circle of just over 3 square miles, and also allowed Redbridge to authorise the establishment by others of a market within that same area … they could have had two markets unlimited in size and only broadly limited by location."
That is one of the reasons why the original objections were so strongly based.
The amended version in which the council is allowed to establish a market which is limited to not more than 80 stalls on the particular site identified by the signed plan is a considerable change from the original Bill.
The letter concludes:
"The petition lodged by Havering in respect of Romford market has produced a transformation in the Bill which it may be thought was unlikely without our opposition."—
there is certainly no reason why it should have been changed.
"This emphasises the danger of launching into private legislation to take away established rights of another body and you might think Parliament could still be urged to send Redbridge away to think again about whether they really need powers of this kind."
The letter was signed by the borough secretary and solicitor.
I mentioned that the terms are changed so that the market will consist of 80 stalls on an identified site. I do not know whether 80 is the right figure. The House will note that I have tabled an amendment on the matter.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, referred to the well reported divisions within the majority group on Redbridge council. As a former council leader, I confess that the news that there could be divisions in local authority groups comes as something less than a shattering surprise. I held the job for three years and I would have been surprised to hear that my council was
512
united about anything—except possibly the name of the local authority, and even then there was probably a rebel fringe moving an amendment.
I recall that it was suggested that up to one third of the majority group had objected to the Bill as originally deposited. We now have a very different Bill which imposes upon the stallholders in the putative market in Redbridge an absolute responsibility to pay sums of money and, as I have already said, it limits the number of stalls.
I do not have to go back very far to remember that quarrels broke out in my council group on far smaller issues. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South will comment on whether the revised Bill now has a clear, obvious and unambiguous commitment from Redbridge council, and whether it is aware of the dangers that have been highlighted this evening and recognises that they should take it away and think again, as the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) suggested.
Obviously, Havering welcomes the fact that, although the original Bill would apply compensation to cases where the right was conferred by statute or royal charter, that has now been deleted so that any legitimate claim can be considered. I welcome the fact that the Bill now refers to 10 per cent. of net profit, although I shall return to that in a moment. Originally, all or some of the rights created in the Bill could have been transferred or disposed of, but now no transfer or disposal can take effect without the consent of Redbridge council. None of that could have happened without the original objection, but equally Havering's central objection still remains.
I now refer to an important point on compensation. Clause 4 (b)(i) states:
"The Director of Finance of the London Borough of Redbridge, acting as an expert and not as an arbitrator, shall within six months after the end of each financial year of the market's undertaking certify the amount of net profit calculated in accordance with paragraph (a)(i) above, and shall send copies of the certificate to the market operator and to the person entitled to receive compensation under that paragraph."
I highlight that for several reasons. I speak as a chartered accountant. I do not usually confess that in public, because it tends to turn people against me—erstwhile friends walk away and decide not to talk to me again—but it means that I have had some experience of drawing up accounts, looking at other people's accounts and, above all, completing accounts from incomplete records.
I freely confess that I have never audited a set of market traders' accounts, but I have carried out the audits of many similar undertakings. I am genuinely concerned about how that will effectively be carried out. Let me make it clear that that is no reflection on the director of finance in the London borough of Redbridge, who I am sure is a well qualified and good representative of the accountancy profession.
Let us think about it for a moment. What evidence will he have for purchases? I doubt whether there will be invoices. My experience of the sort of business undertakings we are talking about strongly suggests that the chances of many invoices being available for the purchases by the market trader are very slight indeed. We shall be relying upon approximations, because much of the business is not accompanied by invoices.
Mr. Thorne: Is my hon. Friend being misled, in that he has not read the Bill? Clause 4(2)(a)(i) contains the words

513
"in each year ten per cent. of the net profit accruing to any person holding a market".
It does not say "market stall": it says "market".
Mr. Squire: If I have got the wrong end of the stick in that respect, perhaps, either now or in winding up, my hon. Friend will clarify the point. In other words, is it a fixed, finite, easily established figure? If it is, I wonder why it is necessary for the director of finance to verify it. If, as I fear, it is not but needs considerable assessment, I am a little concerned.
Since I have presented one side, and a good accountant always tries to present both sides of any case, the obvious other side is the takings. If my theory is right, if the problems of accounting for expenses are there, I judge that the problems of accounting for takings will be even more significant. I suspect that the average inspector of taxes would be the first to agree with that statement. The thought occurs to me that, if the assessment is based on the actual profit of the market traders, presumably it could also be based on their audited accounts, which would have been agreed, so that there would be no great difficulty.
These are major points, because we are talking about compensation. So far, people have said that this is a considerable improvement, and they welcome it as against what was originally proposed. But from where I am standing at the moment, it seems to me that that could be 10 per cent. of very little, which, I need hardly remind the House, is even less. I would appreciate some clarification from the sponsor of the Bill at some appropriate time.
Mr. Pike: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) said that the markets would be in competition for only three days a week, since Redbridge would be doing six days and Havering only three. But is it not true that trading on the three days when Havering traders were in competition would be affected, because people go to a market usually once a week and, if they were able to do so on a different day, that would obviously have an impact within Havering?
Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman, who is on a Select Committee with me, where we usually discuss matters relating to the environment, has made a very good, clear point. Obviously, there is some limit to the amount of money that people will spend in a particular week or other period, and if they have already spent it in one market, say in Redbridge, they cannot spend it a second time—something that even Governments have learnt over the years.
I want to turn now to a letter from the leader of Redbridge council, John Lovell, who I am sure is a very good Conservative and does a very good job. This letter was addressed not to me but to one of my hon. Friends, and it has come into my possession. I know that it is open to anyone to write to any or all right hon. and hon. Members, but I wonder whether there is any change in this in the private Bill procedure. Very strict procedures are laid down, for instance, requiring the promoters to supply a statement, which has to go to all hon. Members. I am sure that you will confirm that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
A selective statement has been sent out by the leader of Redbridge council, which I have not received. I see that my silent hon. Friend the Member for Romford indicates that he too has not received a copy of this letter, in which case
514
he may be very surprised at some of the contents. I have no way of knowing how many people have received the letter. Perhaps all other hon. Members present have received it, in which case they may be rather bored if I highlight some of its contents, but it may be that they too have been the victim of the selective amnesia of the leader of Redbridge council. I do not even know, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether he managed to include you. We draw a veil over that.
In the third paragraph of his letter, Mr. Lovell writes:
"We are obliged to do this because our neighbouring Borough of Havering enjoys the monopoly protection of an ancient Royal Writ which prevents us from affording shoppers in Redbridge the choice they enjoy elsewhere in the country as a matter of right."
The letter could have pointed out the 288 constituencies we have already mentioned, where the same market rights exist. Whether the letter is saying that we should include all the 288 or whether we are only threatening the one is not clear, but the point I want to take up concerns the words "monopoly protection."
What is a monopoly in this context? There are some 300 traders—we have conceded this—who are competing not only among themselves in Romford but also against the shops and stores in Romford. That is scarcely the standard definition of a monopoly. There is a very active retail trade there. If a hypermarket were to be created, since it is unusual to create more than one hypermarket in an area, would that be a monopoly position or would one say that it was competing with other forms of retail trade? I would argue that the word "monopoly" in this case is misused.
The second point about the letter is even more important. It says:
"You may also have received correspondence from the National Market Traders Federation seeking support for the Havering case. The allegation that we, as promoters of the Redbridge Bill, are weakening the rights of street traders is far from the truth—Redbridge in effect seeks an expansion of open market trading and it is Havering relying on its ancient and anachronistic Writ, who is denying the freedom of choice and opportunity which Redbridge seeks."
The only comment made about the letter from the National Market Traders Federation is in the quotation about this Bill weakening the rights of street traders. That is the only point picked up in this criticism.
Many people may have had the letter from the federation and lost it or not seen it; or it may not have reached them, because these things happen in this place, and they may think that this was not much of an objection. But if they were to read what the federation said they would find that it was quite a bit more than the leader implies.
Mr. Bendall: I am not sure what my hon. Friend is trying to prove. Clearly, the National Market Traders Federation letter came some time ago. It was totally against. It was lobbying in a fair way, so I do not see why other people should not lobby.
Mr. Squire: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. The act of lobbying is a legitimate and almost ever-present part of the proceedings of the House. He says that the original letter came some time ago. Many hon. Members receiving this letter from the leader of Redbridge council might have thought that the only complaint was about a weakening of the rights of street traders. It goes into considerable detail and quite simply says—I will just read their concluding sentence or two.
Mr. Bendall: I received a letter a few days ago from the National Market Traders Federation asking how I intended to vote and reminding me of its previous letter.
Mr. Squire: My post bag may have been even more selective, because I have not received that letter. It appears that a sustained attack has been launched upon me.
I shall read the concluding part of a letter from the National Market Traders Federation, which says:
"The Federation"—
the National Market Traders Federation—
"is opposed to the Bill as it believes it would set a dangerous precedent if a Private Bill was allowed to take away common law rights. This could pave the way for another Private Bill that could remove the common law rights of traders, which, with the exception of the few traders who have tenancies, are the only protection that traders have."
The Federation of Street Traders Union—I am delighted to announce to the House that I have received this letter—underlines that message. It says:
"Market traders do not enjoy statutory rights, their only rights being derived from common law. They are concerned that the Redbridge Bill is an attack on common law rights of market franchise owners and thus weakens the few rights that market traders have."
If the Bill is a precursor of future legislation, changes will be made in other constituencies. I have the list of the 285 constituencies that are affected, but I do not propose to read out the names of the hon. Members concerned. I note that both Front Bench spokesmen and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have markets in their constituencies. They will therefore be listening intently to the arguments being deployed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who is regarded as all-powerful by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), is not present tonight, but he also has a market in his constituency. Most important, given my past, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who might be assumed to be a clear believer in market principles—in this context, I mean the other market principles—represents the attractive and delightful area of Kingston upon Thames, where I had the privilege of being educated. If he were present, he would be listening carefully for any precedent being created to destroy the lovely and cherished market in Kingston.
In 1891, the Royal Commission set up by the then Government recommended the abolition of rules for the protection of market rights. For whatever reason, successive Governments and Parliaments have not seen fit to act on that recommendation. On the contrary, the most recent legislation, the Food Act 1984, expressly preserved the rights of protection against rival markets, even when those rival markets are set up by local authorities under statutory powers.
Why have Governments not seen fit to act on that recommendation? It cannot be because of insufficient time. Have no past Governments been anxious to pursue a market-based economy? I can think of one or two that have. Why have they not introduced legislation? Perhaps it is because of a lack of supply side zeal. Nothing restrained the Government from introducing a Bill on Sunday trading, which was not given a Second Reading. The Government were seeking to tackle what many people regard as an anomaly. Time was found for that legislation, so why could not previous Governments introduce legislation on markets?
516
We must assume that successive Ministers considered this, because people would have said to them "This is anachronistic, with its rules on six and two thirds miles, and so on." I suspect that the Government said, "Whatever changes we make, we shall face enormous problems of compensation, of measuring the loss that will be suffered by market traders and the benefit will be limited, even if we take the purest free market principles."
What Government and Parliament refused to do. or decided was not necessary, is being accomplished by a series of little Bills. First, there was the Bexley London Borough Council Bill, and now we have the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill. That should concern all hon. Members, because it cannot be the way to achieve logical legislation. The salami approach, by which bits of legislation are sliced away, makes no sense. We know from correspondence that such action is unpopular with market traders. If we must make changes, it should he by comprehensive reform in a public Bill, not by private legislation.
8.48 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I intend to speak only briefly because the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made many of the points that I would have made. I must make it clear that I hold no brief for Havering or Redbridge. I know little about them, so I cannot be biased in favour of one or the other.
There is a principle in the Bill that threatens other charter markets, one of which is in Burnley. The 284 authorities must be concerned about the methods being used to overcome common law. It is not sufficient for the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) to say that there will be other private Bills. Private legislation is not the way to make these changes.
The charter for the market in Burnley was granted in 1264, and for the fair in 1265. Those dates are inscribed on the wall of the council chamber as notable and historic features in the development of the borough. Originally, the market was held on the doorstep of the church. Burnley was not recorded in the Domesday Book, but two centuries later it flourished around the market.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South dismissed the six-and-two-thirds-mile rule. He must recognise that many towns developed that distance apart, or slightly more, so that a market could be established in them. The pattern of development in many parts of this country was controlled indirectly by that early form of town planning. We should not disregard some of our important historic links.
Perhaps we should reconsider the correctness of the six-and-two-thirds-mile separation. If a sensible proposal to change the distance were introduced, I would not necessarily be rigidly opposed to it. But many factors would have to be considered, should such a change he thought necessary, and the implications would involve local people, market traders, authorities with and without markets in their areas and, of course, the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
We have been told that 98 years ago Parliament considered whether a change was necessary to the six-and-two-thirds-mile rule, and apparently it was decided to maintain the status quo. Few of us are likely to be here 98 years from now should further changes he proposed then.

517
Many authorities have invested in markets in their areas. My local authority invested heavily in the 1960s in the indoor and outdoor markets in the area, and it is intended further to upgrade the outdoor market. Most of the outdoor market is already under cover, mainly because of the weather. My area is close to the Pennines, so we get more rain than areas further south. Genuine worries exist and we should not allow the Bill to proceed in its present form at this stage.
The material put out by the promoters did not deal with the charter conditions and various issues affecting other local authorities. The promoters and Redbridge council must have been aware for some time that such matters have led to the Bill being delayed. I find it surprising. therefore, that they did not address such issues.
Not knowing the areas involved and having read the material as an independent and neutral observer, I envisaged three separate market sites, not three different markets operating on different days on the same site. Whether the material that I read was intentionally misleading I do not know, but most people reading it would have got an incorrect view from what was stated.
It is essential that people, especially hon. Members, should have a thorough understanding of what is proposed. After all, having read it, some hon. Members may have decided not to attend tonight's debate, imagining that Havering has three different markets operating on three different sites, believing that there is no problem.
Mr. Squire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that hon. Members have been known to vote without hearing the balance of the argument and have relied simply on a piece of paper that they have been sent? The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is overwhelmingly valid in a case such as this, when we have a near empty House.
Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I read what private Bills are about, particularly if they concern an area of the country with which I am not familiar. Many private Bills relate to particular areas and issues, the details of which are not known nationally. There are, in those cases, only two ways for hon. Members to know what is proposed. One is to read the literature put out by the promoters and others who are interested in the matter, and in that case we depend on the information being correct and not misleading, intentionally or inadvertently. The second way is to come into the Chamber and listen to the debate.
Some hon. Members may have been influenced by the literature into thinking that Havering has three different markets operating in different parts of the borough, and have reached a view about the Bill on that basis. Issues of principle are involved here. I wish Redbridge no harm. I would be happy to see most of the Bill proceed and the proposed development and investment take place in that borough. However, I have doubts about certain aspects of the measure. If they remain in the Bill, I shall feel it necessary to oppose its passage at this stage.
Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to some of the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned the importance of franchise markets, and I agree with him. But Food Act 1984 markets are important
518
as well. They have played an important part in our shopping life since being introduced and they are to be encouraged.
The hon. Gentleman referred to low-income groups. Pensioners, who now have bus passes, still prefer to shop locally if they can. If he were to ask his constituents whether they preferred to shop in the vicinity of their homes or catch a bus and travel perhaps five and a half miles, he would find that, especially in later life, they preferred to shop locally. It is the desire of my local authority that they should be able to do so.
There is no intention of excluding the National Market Traders Federation from the site. On the other hand, there is no intention to give them a monopoly over it. I trust that the hon. Member for Normanton was not proposing that such a monopoly should exist. This is not a case for a closed shop.
I have referred previously to the location of the site. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not aware that Romford market has both an open and covered section. Neither Asda nor any other group has taken over the covered section of Romford market. This is often called "Rumford" market, which 1 believe is an old and original spelling of the word "Romford".
The hon. Member for Normanton also underrates my local authority and our colleagues on the Opposed Private Bill Committee because they certainly would not allow a situation to arise where a private contractor was able to introduce only his friends and colleagues into the market. I assure him that the London borough of Redbridge would be most assiduous in ensuring that it was kept open to all respectable people and that in any contract entered into by an operator—if that were the way in which it was proposed to operate the market—it would make sure that to do otherwise would be a breach of the contract, which would thereby be terminated. I have no hesitation in believing that that would not be allowed to happen. Our colleagues considered the matter in some detail; they were advised by counsel who were instructed by both the councils involved, and they were a good judge of the ultimate result.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on his speech. He said that his friends tended to ostracise him when they learned that he was a chartered accountant. That could, of course, be the reason why he does not receive as much correspondence as the rest of us. He must have been struck off the lists that give us so much correspondence from the National Market Traders Federation and others on this issue. I am sorry that he was left out, but he has only to ask and he will always be kept fully informed.
I want especially to pick up one of my hon. Friend's points. There have been Bills before the House to vary the distance of six and two thirds miles and that is the right way to proceed. I do not believe that a blanket cover is necessarily the right answer. Each case should be dealt with on its merits, as has happened in this case.
Negotiation is a matter on which two parties must agree. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch is aware of this, but I have tried hard to encourage negotiations to take place between his local authority and mine, and I have not been as successful as I should have wished. I have even pursued the point that the negotiations should take place in front of the six Members of Parliament involved, with the leaders and chief officers of the two authorities. Unfortunately, that suggestion has been turned down.
Mr. Squire: I did not make the point clear when I read the letter from my own borough secretary because I did not want to take up too much time. I must now make it clear that my borough secretary confirmed that an informal approach had been made, but, as he put it, as the purpose of the discussion would in no way reduce ultimately the presence of the Bill—and it is the principle to which Havering objects—no discussion took place.
Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is important that people try to get together in these matters and to resolve issues, because if that had been done at an earlier stage the defects that my hon. Friend saw in the Bill on Second Reading might have been overcome before the matter ever arrived in the House. Many of the corrections that have now been made would have been ironed out before the Bill arrived in the House.—if it ever arrived at all. My local authority is not wholly to blame for the changes that have taken place—quite properly—as a result of the deliberations in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. We have already covered the question of the number of markets, so I shall not say more on that point.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) raised an important point—
Mr. Squire: I am making the assumption that my hon. Friend has disposed of my argument. I hope that before he finishes he will tackle the question that I raised briefly about the measurement of profit and whether we are talking about market traders or someone else.
Mr. Thorne: I dealt with that point at the time and said to my hon. Friend that I felt that he was confusing the market operator with the market trader. We are, of course, talking about the profit to the market operator and that is the basis on which profit is to be calculated. It would not be difficult for a competent accountant to calculate that. It is a question of calculating the number of rents that have been received in a year, and the number of outgoings for the management and the running of the market. That would be relatively easy and straightforward, and it would not require many qualified people to cover it. I have every confidence that the right figure will be produced at the right time without too much difficulty. The Bill also provides for interest on late payments, so that matter has been covered. There is no point in any delay and I am sure that none will ensue.
The hon. Member for Burnley raised some interesting points, especially on the historical side. I was grateful to him for the way in which he described how various towns had been built six and two thirds miles apart, probably on the road from London to York. Eventually, through horrible ribbon development, they may have been joined up. Perhaps they are attractive towns or cities now with one franchise market at each end of the high street.
He also raised the question of substantial investment. If the market is to be successful, it must have major investment. It is no good any more doing these things on a shoestring. A piece of wood on a couple of wheels is no longer adequate. One has to produce something far more attractive to attract the customers to the stall.
We need to consider how frequently these markets take place nowadays, and whether that requires an overall view or whether the matter should be dealt with individually on its merits. Hon. Members have said that a change was last suggested about 90 years ago. My local authority would
520
not want to wait 90 years for an answer. That is why it wants to pursue the matter now. This is not the first time that this has happened. There have been others—Bexley and so on—where reasonable agreements have been reached. That is perhaps the way that the public would wish the matter to be pursued so that it is properly considered.
It is not an inexpensive operation to bring a private Bill here. Counsel and others have to be instructed. It will not be done quickly or on the cheap. The Opposed Private Bill Committee, which comprises two Opposition Members and two Conservative Members, with an Opposition Chairman, investigated the matter thoroughly from every angle, instructed by counsel on behalf of the two councils. Therefore, I believe that we should accept what our colleagues have recommended to the House and that the Bill should proceed to consideration.
Question put, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered:—
The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 24.

Division No. 63]

[9.06 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Kilfedder, James

Arbuthnot, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Beith, A. J.

Lawrence, Ivan

Bendall, Vivian

Maclean, David

Boswell, Tim

Maclennan, Robert

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

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Browne, John (Winchester)

Nicholls, Patrick

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Page, Richard

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Chapman, Sydney

Riddick, Graham

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Cormack, Patrick

Shaw, David (Dover)

Fearn, Ronald

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Summerson, Hugo

Fookes, Dame Janet

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Forth, Eric

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Thorne, Neil

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Thurnham, Peter

Hague, William

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Harris, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Hawkins, Christopher

Wilshire, David

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Wood, Timothy

Irvine, Michael

Jack, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Janman, Tim

Mr. Jacques Arnold and

Kennedy, Charles

Mr. Nicholas Bennett.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Neubert, Michael

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

O'Brien, William

Cryer, Bob

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Skinner, Dennis

Dixon, Don

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Snape, Peter

Durant, Tony

Spearing, Nigel

Gill, Christopher

Wareing, Robert N.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Wells, Bowen

Gregory, Conal

Wray, Jimmy

Haynes, Frank

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Tellers for the Noes:

Meale, Alan

Mr. Robin Squire and

Nellist, Dave

Mr. Peter Pike.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill, as amended, considered.

Clause 3

  ESTABLISHMENT OF MARKET
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Squire: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 13, leave out '80' and insert '50'.
  The first thing that I want to bring to the attention of the House is self-evident: that amendments can be moved to private legislation. It may be that some hon. Members were under the impression that it was not so. In recent weeks there has been considerable discussion about this matter in the context of other measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) said, it is open to the House on Report to amend what was done in Committee. I stress that hon. Members are not bound by the Bill.
  This is a very important amendment. It seeks to reduce from 80 to 50 the number of pitches for which the Bill provides. In a sense, it is a probing amendment. As I was not privy to the Committee's detailed discussions, I have no way of knowing how the figure of 80 was arrived at. Perhaps it was estimated that the total yield from a site of 80 pitches would justify the existence of the market.
  Is it perhaps that and a little bit more, which is my own view? Is it considerably more than would be reasonable? Is it perhaps—we had some discussion on this in our previous debate—related to the market traders or to the market owners? Does it emerge from a minimum range of different types of stall? The Bill simply states that there shall be 80 sites, but we have no idea of the mix of those stalls.
  Many hon. Members will have markets in their constituencies and will recognise that there is a considerable difference between a market that may be 90 per cent. food and the impact that that has on existing shops or, as in this case, on an existing market, and a market that is more evenly distributed between different types of stall. We do not know the answer in this case. We must guess. What we know is that this is a precedent. As has been said, it is doing what the House and successive Governments for nearly 100 years have refused to do—that is, to change the charter under which markets operate.
  That is why 80 looks a large number to me. We are creating a precedent and we should be going more gently. I do not know the size of markets elsewhere. I have no evidence on that and invite hon. Members who have markets in their constituencies to intervene and to give me their view, because I am not sure. We know the size of the Romford market—it has 300 pitches—but at this stage we know nothing more than that 80 is the number that the Bill requires.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: There are markets and markets. They are all over the place. There is one called the Common Market, and the hon. Gentleman supports that. He comes here, pottering about and wanting to stop this market because it affects his constituents, yet the Common Market has affected more of his constituents than the Bill ever will. I am here to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say and because I am interested in street traders. Indeed, I dealt with that matter the other week on a private Member's Bill. The London Local Authorities Bill will
  522
  affect the hon. Gentleman's market as well. It will result in the traders in his market being picked up by local government officials, especially if it is a Tory authority—is it a Tory authority?
  Mr. Squire: Most of the authorities in the south-east are Tory.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Just say yes.
  Mr. Skinner: Well, if that is the case, the hon. Gentleman's traders will be treated just like Lady Porter is treating the Westminster street traders, not a hop, step or a jump from here—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, which is already long. He is trying to tempt the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) to talk about different markets. I am sure that he will not do that.
  Mr. Skinner: I am trying to draw a parallel between the London Local Authorities Bill which dealt with 32 London authorities including this area, but not the City of London. That means that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) has a problem not only with this Bill, but one over and above it, and because of the Bill that went through the House the other week. I think that you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for at least part of that debate, so you know the problem. I am simply saying that the hon. Gentleman wants to be absolutely clear because he has a double-edged problem. He should concentrate on that in the next few minutes—or more.
  Mr. Squire: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who has, indeed, given me a major and double-edged problem. I seek some support across the Chamber and I sense that a semblance of support is growing. If I were to be distracted—as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite rightly say that I should not be—into considering matters relating to another market, clearly I might lose that support as well as antagonising you and that would be double bad news for me.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover originally asked me about markets and mentioned what we might term a very common market. I am talking about a very uncommon market because, as the earlier debate showed, we are talking about something that breaks a precedent of over 100 years. Almost half of the right hon. and hon. Members in the House have at least one market town in their constituencies and-or an open market. They must be aware that the provisions of the Bill, which affect only the London boroughs of Redbridge and Havering, could easily be taken to affect every market in the country.
  To return to the number of stalls, which is the subject of the amendment, I do not know what the mix of market stalls will be. Nobody knows. All that we know is that the market will be open six days a week and will have 80 pitches. That is an awful lot of trading. Without knowing the impact that the market will have, should we not proceed more cautiously? The amendment that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) have tabled would allow 50 pitches. That would be a more reasonable number. It would still allow a range of goods, food and whatever else the market will specialise in to be sold.
  If we are now agreed on the compensation terms, presumably it would cost less in compensation to have 50

  523
  pitches, if, as I am led to believe, the market will be profitable. I and several other people who have examined the Bill consider that 80 pitches is excessive. I do not wish to delay the House too long. I suggest that the Bill be amended and the number of pitches reduced to 50.
  Mr. Thorne: The figure of 80 was put before the Opposed Private Bill Committee. In its wisdom it decided that that was the right figure. My hon. Friend is entitled to his view, but I am afraid that that was not the view of the Committee. It will be perfectly possible to object to the figure if the Bill proceeds to another place, where it will also be examined by a Committee. The Committee of this House believed that the figure of 80 was right. I believe that was the correct decision.
  Mr. Squire: The House deserves a little more explanation of how the figure was arrived at. I can only put some of the questions about it. It is important that the House is aware of the reasoning behind the decision of the Committee. We should not simply accept it.
  Mr. Thorne: The figure of 80 was arrived at in the same way as the figure of 600 was arrived at for Romford. It was decided to have 600 pitches at Romford because that was the number of stalls that could be fitted into the market when the cattle market was taken away. The figure of 80 at Redbridge is the number of stalls that can be fitted on to the site that I described previously.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 44.

  Division No. 64]

  [9.27 pm

  AYES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Beith, A. J.

  Neubert, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cryer, Bob

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wells, Bowen

  Gregory, Conal

  Haynes, Frank

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Irvine, Michael

  Mr. Robin Squire and

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Mr. Dennis Skinner

  Meale, Alan

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Janman, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Kilfedder, James

  Baker. Nicholas (Dorset N)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Boswell, Tim

  Maclean, David

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

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Page, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Paice, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Summerson, Hugo

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Durant, Tony

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Thorne, Neil

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Thurnham, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Wilshire, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Wood, Timothy

  Hague, William

  Harris, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mr Nicholas Bennett and

  Jack, Michael

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Squire: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
  '(2) A market established under this section may be held on such days of the week as the Council may determine, including Sunday.'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 18, at end insert
  `save that the market shall not be held on more than two days a week'.
  No. 4, in page 2, line 18, at end insert
  'save that the market shall not be held on more than one day a week'.
  Mr. Squire: I feel rather like a one-man band because of the unavoidable departure of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor)—who began our opposition to the Bill in such a distinguished manner—and the continuing required silence of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) because he is a member of the Treasury Bench.
  I remind the House and any new arrivals that the markets in Havering impose a duty upon me, as a residual Member for Havering, to put the arguments. These key amendments are intended to determine precisely on how many and on which days of the week the proposed new market in Redbridge will open.
  Mr. Skinner: Thursday is no good.
  Mr. Squire: Is the hon. Gentleman basing his remark on attendance in this House on a Thursday?
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is talking about markets being profitable. If he compares attendance at the markets on a Thursday with attendance in this House on a Thursday, it is obvious that Thursday is not the day to have a market. The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) who opposed the Bill. He has gone. The hon. Gentleman then mentioned somebody else who has also pottered off. He said that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) could not speak because he is a Minister. It is just like Fred Karno's army. All the troops have left the hon. Gentleman. I could mention someone else, but I will not.
  What kind of outfit does the hon. Gentleman have? If he is going to carry on he must get his troops together. We have got our people. The hon. Gentleman has lost his little army. They have probably gone to the market and are setting up stalls. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is opposing the Bill, but his troops could be playing a double hand. They could be putting up stalls ready for a Friday market. He cannot trust people in this place because there is all sorts of moonlighting. I would not put it past Tory Members to be making money on the side in that market. The hon. Gentleman should investigate that.
  Mr. Squire: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions. However, in all fairness I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford is not missing. He is present, but the rules of the House deny him the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Alan Meale: Why?
  Mr. Squire: That is a separate point about the legislature.

  525
  I confess immediately that one of the difficulties of having been in this place for only just over 10 years is that I have never taken part in the sort of activities for which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has become a household name. However, I am learning.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes a serious point. There are a number of absentees from the Chamber tonight. I want an assurance from the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) that the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is not already setting up a stall in Redbridge market and making another £200,000 per year. I feel sure that many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House would regard it as an outrage for a right hon. Member to receive a salary of £26,000 a year after a 10 per cent. pay increase, and another £200,000 by moonlighting, when ambulance men cannot get a 10 per cent. pay rise.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) said that he was learning, and he should not be seduced from moving his amendment.
  Mr. Squire: I did not realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was going that way. I shall not comment on it.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover also spoke of absent right hon. and hon. Members. If one adds together the votes in the last Division, they amount to a large figure. Perhaps it would be invidious to inquire why a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are not in the Chamber.
  Amendment No. 2 tackles head-on why Redbridge market should not open on Sunday. In the proceedings of the past hour or two, I have detected a certain flavour or—
  Mr. Cryer: Nuance?
  Mr. Squire: Nuance is a good word. There has been a certain free market approach from some of my hon. Friends in particular, who implied that the Bill's purpose is to do away with cobwebbed, dusty, outmoded and outdated legislation—yet they stop short of incorporating in the legislation the very provision that would reflect their belief in a totally free and unregulated market. I refer to the market's right to open on Sunday.
  We should probe behind the Bill to establish why the market will not do so. Some Opposition Members may hold strong views about Sunday trading, and may have expressed them on previous occasions. However, even they might agree that legislation that purports to be a free market, one-off measure should include the right of the market to open on Sunday—when it would not compete with the one at Romford, and which would allow people to buy all the things that they want on Sunday.
  Presumably the market's traders and operators want it to be successful and profitable. Instead of being open for only six days a week, it could be open for seven. Alternatively, the six days could include Sunday, so that the number of days stipulated in the Bill would remain unchanged. Either way, profitability would be increased.
  Mr. Meale: The real reason is that had Sunday opening been included in the Bill, there is little likelihood that the Government would have supported it. Another reason is the risk of provoking a revolt on the Conservative Benches because of the church and shop lobbies.
  Perhaps another reason is that the Government, having got themselves in such a turmoil over the ambulance dispute, which has caused such disquiet among the public—most of whom are totally against the attitude adopted by the Secretary of State for Health—and having created so much furore after giving a heck of a lot of money to their friends in the City, and in respect of many other industrial matters—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks in any way to the amendment.
  Mr. Squire: You can rest assured that I shall resist the temptation to respond to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, at the start of his intervention the hon. Gentleman made a very good point when he referred to what happened a few years ago when the House last had the opportunity to discuss Sunday trading. It is arguable that since then a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House might have changed their minds. In a number of local authorities the key point has been whether people who break the law on Sunday trading should be prosecuted.
  Mr. Meale: To return to the point about Sunday trading, the Sunday Sports Bill attempted to change the legislation to legalise sporting activities on Sundays. That failed abysmally because hon. Members on both sides of the House argued and campaigned against it. The promoters of the Bill and the Government were worried about that happening again.
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman helps the discussion on the amendment.
  The argument on Sunday trading may have shifted substantially. Many local authorities complain because they do not know what the law is at present. They want clarification and they are not getting it. Many of us are being contacted by constituents either saying that they want the opportunity to go shopping on Sunday and buy a three-piece lawnmower or whatever, or asking why the council is not enforcing the law and saying that it is wrong that shops should be open.
  Tonight we have one of the first opportunities for a long time to discuss Sunday trading in the context of this private Bill. I have already said that I believe that the private Bill procedure is inadequate and should not be used for such legislation, but the House has already voted that it should. I disagree with that, but since we have it, it is only right and proper that we should explore whether Sunday trading has become more popular with hon. Members.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I am in two minds about the amendment. I do not know whether to support it or to oppose it. What is the attitude of the people in Redbridge? Has there been a survey of the churches and the shops or any general consultation? Can the hon. Gentleman inform us about that so that we can make up our minds?
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question. I can give him only half an answer, but it is

  527
  germane to the amendment. Havering is next to Redbridge and they have similar-minded people. Opinions may have changed, but when Sunday trading was being considered, many people wrote to me saying that they wanted the law to be changed. They were disappointed that time. It may be different in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as I cannot speak for that area. Nor can I speak for Redbridge as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will undoubtedly do when he returns and I hope he will address that point. My knowledge of Ilford is only a fraction of that of my hon. Friend as he has been a distinguished Member of Parliament for 10 years or more. I am sure that an awful lot of people in Ilford like going out on Sundays and would shop if they could. An awful lot of people would trade on Sundays if they could. That is one reason why I tabled the amendment.
  I do not want to talk only about Sunday trading. The key point that has been made against the Bill, other than the objection in principle to the legislation being used to change the law, is the impact that it will have on the existing Romford market. Nobody could possibly know what the impact will be. All we know is that the more the new market is allowed to trade in Redbridge, the more impact, logically, that will have on existing businesses.
  Mr. Meale: It will have an undoubted effect. The argument has been put in many circles, particularly in local authority circles, that perhaps a one-day market can positively encourage trade. But if it is over a period of six days—and we are talking about 480 units—that will undoubtedly have a major effect on the shopkeepers surrounding this major new marketing operation.
  Mr. Squire: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member, who makes his point well.
  In our early discussions this evening we touched several times on the compensation and the way in which it had been changed. No one can deny that it has been improved. When the Bill was introduced the compensation was disgraceful and totally inadequate. It has now been amended, and that is welcomed, but only relative to what it was before. The underlying aim of the legislation remains—to prevent the existing market in Romford, which is identical to the 287 other markets throughout the country in constituencies represented by right hon. and hon. Members, from being as successful in the future as it has been in the past. There is no argument about that.
  Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman says that the compensation is now acceptable. I remind him that in the earlier debate it was indicated that the compensation would be paid by the people who ran the market. As the people who run the market fix the rent at a certain level for stallholders, they very much influence that profit figure. So the compensation is completely in their control and may not be realistic compensation at all.
  Mr. Squire: That is one of the key points.
  Of course, I could say that people in Romford welcome the compensation, and that would be the end of it. But I am arguing for a reduction in the number of days that they will trade which, logically, would lead to a reduction in the compensation. It is a measure of the concern felt by Romford and Havering that I should be saying that, although the compensation will not be sufficient, none the less we wish to see the activities of this new non-charter market, created only by legislation of this Chamber, restricted to a fewer number of days.
  I have an open mind as to whether it should be one day or two days and I thought it only right that I put down more than one amendment—indeed, they have wisely been grouped together—because this would, in theory at least, give hon. Members on both sides of the House the opportunity to say which they thought was the better. Both are significant cuts in the six days presently included in the Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should also consider what will happen in the area where the market is situated when it is not operating. On different days during the week different activities can take place. The mind boggles at the extent to which—
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: They could sell shares.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says that they could sell shares. They could be like yuppie street traders. The area could be a car park. Football could be played on it. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter he might find that there are possibilities for large groups of his constituents and other people's constituents to engage in all sorts of leisure activities on that area. If he is a bit unsure of his ground, he should think in terms of what could happen on the market place when it is not being used for a market.
  Mr. Squire: Not for the first time, I am indebted to the hon. Member for Bolsover. I promise not to release that in Bolsover, if he promises not to do so in Hornchurch. He rightly said that Redbridge should be more imaginative about the site.
  Mr. Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten me about compensation? The Government are pushing for the privatisation of local government management services. What will happen if the management services are privatised—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Further consideration adjourned till Thursday 8 February—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Civil Aviation (Borrowing Powers) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Civil Aviation Authority (Borrowing Powers) Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 1

  BORROWING POWERS OF CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
  10 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out '£500' and insert '£450'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, leave out from 'million' to end of line 11.
  Mr. Wilshire: I move the amendments as one of the Members of Parliament representing Heathrow airport. Some 70,000 electors will be seriously affected by parts of the Bill if certain plans go ahead.
  I felt compelled to table the amendments earlier this week because of what has occurred since the Standing Committee considered the Bill on 18 January. On 23 January, British Midland Airways published a report calling for exactly the changes at Heathrow that were discussed when the money resolution was debated on 17 January and when the Committee considered the Bill on 18 January. The report estimates the cost of the changes at Heathrow at £50 million—exactly the sum that I seek to delete, thus making it impossible for the Civil Aviation Authority to spend money on what was suggested in those discussions and in the report.
  On Second Reading, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping gave two reasons for wanting the Bill to be enacted, one of which concerns us now. He said:
  "One project is the central control function; it has been called the tunnels in the sky concept. It involves a major restructuring of the airspace over south-east England and will increase capacity in the terminal manoeuvring area over the south-east by at least 30 per cent. when it is fully in place in 1995."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 20 December 1989; c. 3.]
  So far so good. I have no objections if the Bill does that, but the problems start when one asks where the 30 per cent. will land. When the Bill was considered previously, various hon. Members urged the CAA to spend money to enable much of that extra 30 per cent. to land at Heathrow airport.
  Two suggestions affecting Heathrow were made in those previous discussions, both of which will need the use of the borrowing powers if they are to be implemented. They are, first, ending the daily runway switch at 3 o'clock and, secondly, allowing more night flights. Those were the common themes that ran through much of the discussion on how further to utilise Heathrow. Surprise, surprise, those were two of the five proposals put forward by an independent airline, which it costed at £50 million, the amount which I seek to delete from the Bill. In case anyone doubts whether an independent airline's proposals for Heathrow affect the CAA, I tell the House that in order to get the details of what was being proposed by British Midland Airways I had to ask the CAA for them. So it is involved and must be stopped.
  Let us look in some detail at the purpose of trying to spend the £50 million that I am anxious to prevent being
  530
  spent. It is to try to create 75,000 extra slots—extra landings and takeoffs—at Heathrow. That would represent about 22 per cent. additional traffic movement a year through that airport.
  The report, in seeking to spend that money, suggests that five alterations should be made. They are that mixed mode operations should alter the runway switching; that there should be a reduction in the lateral separation of aircraft as they are flying around the airport; that there should be new taxiways to make it quicker for aircraft to get off the runways; that there should be an extension of the working day; and that airline efficiency should be improved.
  When the Bill was considered previously, those of us who opposed such matters were described unflatteringly. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for example, said in Standing Committee:
  "The environment lobby groups—comparatively few—suggest that all the people around the airport are up in arms about noise. That is not true. It is a 'not 'in my backyard' approach, because while they are happy to have the M25 and other major roads nearby for their convenience, a lorry driving along the M25 creates much more noise than an aircraft".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 January 1990; c. 6.]
  My hon. Friend went on to try to persuade everybody that quieter aircraft would get rid of the problem.
  I give that quotation to make the point that my opposition and that of my constituents to some of what is proposed is not a mindless, knee-jerk, "not in my backyard" approach to everything that might be suggested for Heathrow airport. My constituents and I have no objection in principle to some of the money that is to be borrowed being spent to improve air traffic control. Indeed, if that makes life safer for us, we are happy. Nor have we any objection to the money being spent on improving the taxiways, and if it means spending money to improve airline efficiency, we would welcome that.
  But if any of the £50 million is to be used to enable mixed mode runway use to take place at Heathrow or to increase the number of night flights, I must make it crystal clear that I and all my constituents, irrespective of party, will fight the proposals tooth and nail.
  In trying to persuade the House to clip the wings of the Bill, it is vital that I explain to the Minister in detail what bothers me and thus give him a chance, if he can, to reassure me that the money that is to be spent will not be spent on the aspects to which I have referred.
  What is it about mixed mode runway use to which we object so much? At present, at Heathrow airport at 3 o'clock each day the runways are switched round so that a runway used for takeoff in the morning is used for landing aircraft in the afternoon, and vice versa. That came about because an aircraft taking off makes much more noise than an aircraft landing. That is equally true of quieter aircraft and older noisy aircraft; there is still more noise on take-off.
  Switching runways was felt to be a way of helping people living near the airport to come to terms with the situation, so that they would have trouble in the morning and less trouble in the afternoon. They would know where they stood and at what times the switch would take place.
  Lest the House does not think that that is important, I will explain what goes on in my constituency. People get to know the switching times for the week. If they must go shopping or visit friends, they do it when the nearest runway is noisy. If they want to be at home or do

  531
  gardening, they look up the runway arrangements for the week and plan their lives accordingly. So it is as relevant now as when the scheme was first introduced.
  If the CAA is tempted to spend some of the money to make it possible for that 3 o'clock rule to be relaxed, it should be warned that not only will it be resisted but that is will be wasting its money. When the Bill was considered previously, two points were made about the arrangement, and we should consider them because they show what happens when people who are not connected with the airport are allowed to try to pose as experts and tell their colleagues what is going on.
  When the money resolution was debated, my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said of the arrangements there:
  "I wonder whether my hon. Friends are aware that at Heathrow every day at 3 o'clock the runways are changed, rather like the changing of the guard. That results in about a half-hour gap in operations as the CAA changes the runway pattern."—[Official Report, 17 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 362.]
  When the Bill was considered in Committee the following day, my hon. Friend said:
  "Heathrow is closed for about 20 minutes as the runway configurations are changed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 January 1990; c. 4.]
  Within a matter of hours, half an hour had become 20 minutes.
  This afternoon, I rang up national air traffic control services to double check that my memory was correct. It confirmed that the switch round at 3 o'clock is almost instantaneous. It does not stop operations and there is no drop in the hourly rate of aircraft movements in that hour. As well as being opposed by us, if the CAA is tempted to spend any of the money in getting rid of the 3 o'clock rule, it will not find any more slots from that manoeuvre.
  There seems to be a suggestion that some of the money could be used to increase the number of night flights. The British Midland Airways report does not say that. It says, "Let's not get into the argument about night flights. Let's turn night into day and extend day-time by half an hour at either end." Instead of having a ban from 11·30 pm until 6 am—not a complete ban, but a very severe curb on flights in and out of the airport so that my constituents can sleep—and instead of giving them peace and quiet during those hours in the summer, it is suggested that the hours should be midnight to 5.30 am. Again, it is suggested that that does not matter because aircraft have become quieter. My constituents are not overfussed about whether they are woken up abruptly or gently; they simply object to being woken up. Until my hon. Friend the Minister, the CAA or British Midland Airways can come forward with a silent aircraft, we are implacably opposed in my constituency to any increase in night flights or any tinkering with times, so that, by a sleight of hand, people can say that it is not night time after all.
  I have tabled two amendments. My hon. Friend the Minister is keen to have 30 per cent. more aircraft circling over London. I do not necessarily oppose that. British Midland Airways is keen to spend £50 million of the money that we are considering tonight to divert 75,000 of the extra slots to Heathrow. The test we have to apply is to consider for what the money will be used. For what will the £50 million—which my amendment seeks to restrict—be used? If it is to be used for airline efficiency, that is fine. 1 support it if it is to be used for better air traffic control. I also support new taxiways, but unless my hon.
  532
  Friend can assure me that the money will not be spent on more night flights, that it will not be used to turn night into day and that it will not be used to scrap the arrangements that have been worked out over the years to protect the interests of my constituents, I hope that all hon. Members will join me in opposing spending money in that way, which will harm my constituents and will do no good to civil aviation.
  The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on his ingenuity in tabling amendments to raise some of the serious issues which concern me and all hon. Members who have constituencies around Heathrow airport. With some precision, my hon. Friend quoted some of the comments made on the money resolution and in Committee. I am sure that he has also noted in those debates the words of our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), who put the case well for the residents in the area, although I know that my hon. Friend was not a member of that Committee.
  I hope I can go some way to reassure my hon. Friend that the money that we are talking about is not intended to increase the amount of time for night flights. I answered a question from my hon. Friend on that matter just yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has rejected the CAA's argument for a relaxation of the night restrictions, because of some of the well-known fears that my hon. Friend and his neighbours have put to us many times. There is no intention of changing the night-time restrictions until 1992, when they will be reviewed. We will need to see where we go then. The money is not being used for that. I ask my hon. Friend not to press the amendment to a vote.
  10.15 pm
  I should emphasise that we are not adding £500 million to the CAA's borrowing limit. The CAA is already close to reaching the existing limit of £200 million, which was set in 1980. The limit represents an increase of £300 million. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the CAA is embarking upon an ambitious capital investment programme, amounting to £600 million over the next 10 years. Much of the programme will need to be financed by borrowing, because many of the individual projects are long term, and the CAA will not be able to recoup all the cost from the airlines which use the improved air navigation services which will result until the equipment is fully operational. Therefore, it will take time.
  The new equipment includes a new en-route centre costing £200 million, a central control function at £30 million, Scottish radar at £18 million and computer ware at £22 million. The list is substantial. If my hon. Friend were to push his amendment as drafted, it would reduce considerably the borrowing powers of the CAA and impede the programme which it is important to accommodate. It would also mean that we would need further legislation in the not-too-distant future.
  The Bill is in two parts. First, it allows for a borrowing requirement of up to £500 million and, in due course, a possible extension to be given by affirmative resolution of the House. Therefore, there will be other opportunities to see whether the CAA is spending the money as my hon. Friend wishes, and whether it is investing and providing the efficient utilisation of air space that we all want.

  533
  I commend my hon. Friend on the way in which he presented his proposal. I hope that I have reassured him that the money is not meant to get rid of the mixed mode operation or to end night-time restrictions. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is present, also understands his concern. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendment to a vote. We have heard loud and clear his message on the two issues that he has raised.
  Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the Minister has said, and I thank him for it. Perhaps I could do a deal with him. If I were to withdraw the amendment, perhaps he would be
  534
  willing on occasions to come and have tea with me at 3 o'clock so that I can remind him of what happens. Perhaps from time to time, or even tonight, if the debate goes on a little longer, he will have a nightcap with me at 11 o'clock or half-past 11 so that he can notice how much quieter Spelthorne becomes when the planes stop rumbling overhead. If that is acceptable to him—I hope that he will nod his head vigorously—
  Mr. McLoughlin indicated assent.
  Mr. Wilshire:—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.18 pm
  Mr Snape: The House will have heard the plea both for late-night drinks and for less aircraft noise from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). We have noted the Minister's reply. Perhaps he does not want to say in public whether he will meet the hon. Gentleman later in his constituency; we can understand if he wants to keep that quiet. The plea of the hon. Member for Spelthorne about aircraft noise is common. Like him, I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) speak about it earlier in a cavalier fashion.
  I have some questions to put to the Minister. I hope that by so doing I shall not unduly detain the House or prevent the Minister from keeping his late-night tryst with his hon. Friend, either within the confines of the Palace or in his hon. Friend's constituency. Nevertheless, I think that the House needs some reassurances from the Department about the effect of the measure, especially its effect on air safety.
  First, can we be assured that the Civil Aviation Authority has enough capital to make the investment that will be necessary for all the new safety and capacity requirements envisaged for the aviation world in the 1990s? A second question arises directly from that one: can the Minister give us any assurances about the accuracy of the CAA's forecasting over the next decade? He will, I hope, agree—or he may agree; I had better not put words into his mouth—that the CAA made a fundamental error in the early 1980s in cutting the number of air traffic controllers, and that it has taken us until now to recover from that decision. I hope that he can assure us that the predictions about aviation in the 1990s will prove more accurate than those of the last decade.
  Did the Minister see the "Scottish Eye" programme on Channel 4 on Saturday evening? It raised a number of disturbing questions about air traffic control and aviation safety. The travelling public—or at least, those who watched the programme—will have been alarmed to see air traffic controllers expressing fears about what they described as the cutting of corners in air traffic control training, and referring to considerable under-investment in such training. Perhaps most important and worrying of all was what air traffic controllers said about the under-recording of "near misses": it seems that recording them reflects badly on air traffic control procedures, and on traffic controllers themselves.
  The Minister looks a little pained at that. I did not see the programme—although I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House did—but I feel that some of the questions that it raised are serious enough for him to examine and answer.
  I was even more concerned—these will be my last words on the subject of the television programme—to learn that the air traffic controllers who were interviewed were silhouetted rather than shown full-face, and that their voices were distorted to avoid identification. If those safety fears exist—and the fact that they were expressed in the programme suggests that they do—why should those expressing them have to do so in semi-secret, in order—as they put it—to avoid persecution and disciplinary problems at work?
  536
  Have the Government considered the impact of deregulation in the 1990s, especially on air space? We must bear in mind the fact that more smaller aircraft are likely to use British airports as airlines make use of the fifth-freedom rights that the Government believe will be introduced during the decade. Is the extra demand on air traffic control being catered for, and can the Minister assure us that an increase in the number of smaller aeroplanes will not lead to a reduction in safety measures, or even to more delays?
  If my memory serves me right, it was at last year's Conservative party conference that the Secretary of State for Transport announced a new control centre to replace the one at West Drayton. That was one of the few good things he said. One could be even more cynical and say that it was one of the few things he said, but, as cynicism would be inappropriate from Opposition Members—especially at this time of night—I think that we should hear more details from the Minister. Now that the tumultuous applause at the party conference has died down, I think that he should tell us when the work will begin, where the new centre will be and when it will come into operation.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Can the hon. Member tell us when the Labour party debated transport at its conference, or whether it is still reviewing its policy?
  Mr. Snape: The Minister surprises me. Strictly speaking, that is not a matter for this debate, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to reply briefly. If the Minister had been tuned in to the Labour party conference on the Tuesday—
  Mr. McLoughlin: Was the hon. Member there?
  Mr. Snape: Actually, I was not there, but I had a very good reason. I was ill and unable to attend the conference at all—the first time for over 20 years that I had been deprived of a fraternal week by the sea.
  I think that it was on the Tuesday of the conference week that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made his usual pugnacious contribution, which—remarkably for a Labour party conference, because we do not usually go in for these things—was greeted with a standing ovation. It was not quite as tumultuous as the one that greeted the Minister's right hon. Friend, but then it was not as well rehearsed as the ones—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members on both Front Benches will now set a good example by returning to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Snape: I apologise for having allowed that intervention to lead me astray momentarily. Of course I will come back to the Bill.
  Does the Under-Secretary of State, as regulator for what was the British Airports Authority—now BAA plc—intend to have any consultations with the Civil Aviation Authority about the forecast increase in landing charges in the current year? Does he believe that the CAA will take any action, as it did last year, to restrict fare increases? I want briefly to draw his attention to a cutting from the Sunday Times of last week.
  In an article headed "Bargain flights grounded as airlines' costs soar", Francis Rafferty pointed out:

  537
  "The CAA has just spent £50m on a new radar network and £20 million on an air traffic control computer which will be in operation this summer as part of a £600m programme.
  The CAA last week said it was relaxing the 10-day notice period to allow airlines to put up fares quickly.
  `Our landing fees at Gatwick will increase by 49 per cent. from April,' said Malcolm Naylor, managing director of Bryman Airways. 'Changes in the pricing structure mean that our tiny 46-seaters will be charged £382 per landing, the same as a Jumbo Jet.'"
  I do not know whether, at this time of night, the Minister can give us any reassurance about the likely impact of such costs on airline fares. I hope that he will concede that it is a worrying trend and not likely to assist the Government's well-publicised, albeit very unsuccessful, battle to reduce inflation.
  Finally, I want to draw to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State an aspect of air safety in this country that is often overlooked. I hope that this Bill will go some way to tackling it. I refer to the increasing use of foreign registered and operated airlines leased by British airlines.
  My understanding is that these aircraft are neither maintained nor operated to United Kingdom standards; nor are they subject to normal checks and controls by the Civil Aviation Authority. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us—preferably tonight, but, if necessary, at some future time—that the increase in borrowing powers will go some way towards reducing this problem.
  Many British aircrew believe that foreign crews leased to British airlines fly longer hours than would be permitted if they were United Kingdom nationals flying with United Kingdom airlines. In some parts of the industry, there is considerable concern that in these cases maintenance does not conform to United Kingdom levels.
  There is no point in the Government and the CAA insisting on United Kingdom airlines adopting more stringent maintenance practices and reducing crew flying hours if the result is that airlines bypass the laws and bring in foreign crews and aeroplanes. Many passengers fly with British airlines because they feel safer doing so, and it would surely be a betrayal of their faith and trust if, through Government policies, there was even greater use of foreign aircraft in the future.
  As a side issue, we allow crews and aircraft to operate in this country from countries that would not allow us to operate there. I refer especially to the United States of America. Certain aeroplanes that are certified for use in that country fly in the United Kingdom—one has done so for over two years now—without any United Kingdom certification, whereas the reverse would not be permitted in the United States of America. In our view, it is not something that should be permitted here.
  Although I have asked the Minister a considerable number of questions, I hope that he will be able to answer them, if not this evening, at least in the very near future—in which case the Opposition believe that the Bill should receive its Third Reading tonight.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: In the Second Reading Committee, 1 said that I had no objection to the principle of the Bill. I still hold that opinion and I do not criticise its basic concept.
  538
  When I entered the Chamber I intended to add to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) when he moved his amendments seeking to reduce the limit on borrowing, because I wished to comment on the actual process of borrowing which, after all, is the real content of the Bill. However, I felt that it might damage my hon. Friend's comments and the Minister's reply if I raised yet a different issue and the matter was not, therefore, dealt with separately.
  Although wishing the Bill good speed, I still wish to express my concern about the way in which it is likely to operate in practice. I give my hon. Friend the Minister fair warning that when he comes to the House with the affirmative resolutions that will be necessary before each of the individual tranches of borrowing is made, I shall want to know more than simply the amount and the general purpose.
  As I tried to make clear at an earlier stage, the Bill provides for the CAA to borrow in a range of currencies. It does not state that it must spend those currencies in the country to which they apply. If the CAA borrows Dutch guilders, for example, it does not have to buy Dutch radar equipment. It can purchase British equipment. However, that involves changing the guilders back into sterling. Given the volatility of sterling these days, there is almost certain to be either a gain or a loss on the process over a period.
  It was to that point that I sought to direct my hon. Friend the Minister during the Second Reading Committee debate. Although he answered my question, I should not have raised the matter again tonight except that, frankly, the more one reads his answer, the less intelligible it is in providing a serious answer to my question about the amount of money that is being put at the disposal of the CAA as compared with the nominal amount that it can borrow.
  In the Second Reading Committee, when I asked the Minister whether it would be possible to engage in such operations, he replied no. On careful reading of the Hansard, I have concluded that he meant to say, "Yes, they cannot do it." That is a different matter. He will be faced with the difficulty of explaining how sums that were borrowed in one currency, but were not spent on one occasion in the country of that currency, will affect the total borrowing requirement of the CAA.
  My hon. Friend explained to us in the Committee that there will not be an addition to the borrowing powers of the CAA of, say, £500 million or £750 million, but that the CAA will borrow in anticipation of the revenues that it will receive from those who use the airports. I am told that those revenues are paid entirely in sterling. There will be a major accounting problem. My hon. Friend seems to suggest that that will not be so. If the CAA receives its revenues in a variety of currencies, the position will be even more complicated. Perhaps he will clarify the matter.
  When affirmative resolutions are brought before the House, shall we know in what currency the original borrowing was made, in which country the purchases will be made and, if there is a difference between the amount borrowed and the amount spent, the purpose for which the difference was used? My hon. Friend may well regret that complication when orders come before the House.
  I do not wish to detain the House further or to oppose the Bill, but I give my hon. Friend fair warning of a complication which, to some extent, is of the Government's making.
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: In welcoming the measure, I wish to take this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend some questions about how it will affect air services to the north-west—in particular, Manchester airport and Speke airport at Liverpool, which may be expanded.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that Conservative Members from the north-west have fought for services into Manchester airport. Will he, either now or by letter later, spell out how Manchester may benefit, particularly in air traffic control facilities, from the equipment that the additional borrowing powers may be used to purchase? Many people use Manchester airport to begin their holidays. They are tired of the endless excuse that their flight is delayed because of air traffic control problems. We are trying to win additional services to Manchester to take away some of the burden from overcrowded airports in the south, to which other hon. Members have referred.
  Will my hon. Friend respond to the points that I have raised on behalf of air service users in the north-west?
  10.37 pm
  Mr. McLoughlin: I shall respond to as many of the points raised as possible. I begin by welcoming the general approach of the Opposition to the Bill, which is important for the overall future of air traffic control and air safety.
  When we discuss air safety, it is important to put in perspective the record of the United Kingdom. We give safety the highest priority. That can never be compromised. There is no doubt that there is sufficient money to cover safety requirements.
  The number of air misses related to aircraft flying hours has halved over the past 10 years. I do not take comfort from that, because I should like the number to be much lower. However, it is important to put it in context. We have a reporting system, and all air misses are investigated. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I did not see the television programme to which he referred, but I shall seek to find out a little more about some of the points that were made. I am told that a representative from the CAA said that safety was its business and that it was not concerned just with carrying passengers, but with carrying them safely and making sure that aircraft get from A to B safely. There can be no doubt about our commitment to air safety. That is fundamental.
  The hon. Gentleman was critical of our failure to forecast growth as well as might have been done. That is always a problem with forecasting. Sometimes we get it right and sometimes we get it wrong. Air traffic has increased by about 48 per cent. during the past 10 years. It would have been a brave person who made that forecast. Air traffic has grown by 7 per cent. in the past 12 months, due partly to our liberalisation policies, which have meant cheaper transport and more people travelling by plane.
  Mr. Snape: I am perfectly prepared to accept that to forecast a traffic growth of 48 per cent. in the 1980s would have been fairly difficult, but I was complaining about the fact that the CAA got it so wrong that, until five years ago, it was reducing the number of air traffic controllers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that was a fundamental error.
  Mr. McLoughlin: A lot of effort has gone into reversing the shortage of air traffic controllers.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the training of air traffic controllers. We cannot make safety a high priority and then cut the training programmes for air traffic controllers. We are considering the possibility of training people in different aspects of air traffic control, such as the flying tunnels concept, as opposed to airport work. I hope that that will help to reassure the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth. North (Mr. Griffiths) made an important point that I am sorry I was unable to clarify in Committee. The CAA can already borrow in foreign currencies and the Bill extends its powers to ecu. One reason for that is that much of its revenue from Eurocontrol will come in ecu. It needs Treasury approval for any borrowing in foreign currencies, and that will be clearly shown in its accounts. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied, he will be able to make his complaints when we deal with the affirmative resolution to increase the sum to £750 million.
  There is no doubt about the importance that the Government attach to regional airports. We are committed to the role that they can play. It is nonsense that someone from Derbyshire, Manchester or Sheffield should have to travel to London to join a flight. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a meeting in the United States on that issue and we hope to make further progress. If the matter had been easy to resolve, it would have been resolved a long time ago. Regional airports can play a vital role in air traffic control and in making travel more convenient for our constituents. My constituents probably use the East Midlands airport, but we are not too far from Manchester.
  I hope that hon. Members will give this useful and valuable Bill its Third Reading. It gives the CAA the flexibility that it needs to organise the finance for its ambitious and vital capital development programme.
  Mr. Snape: I made three or four other points in the course of my speech—deregulation and smaller aircraft and the impact of fifth-freedom rights on United Kingdom airspace; landing charges and their impact on fares throughout the United Kingdom; and the use of foreign-registered planes and crews. I do not expect an answer immediately on those points, but I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he will consider them and write to me in due course.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman in greater detail about the three points that I have not covered, particularly the last one.
  I was not wholly surprised at the amount of debate which the Bill has generated, even though it could easily be seen as a mere technical measure both in Committee and the House. Aviation is an important subject. I fully understand that, whenever hon. Members have the opportunity to debate it, they use it to bring to the Government's attention some of the issues which are important to them and their constituents. It is right that they should do so, and we shall take note of the number of comments made not only by Members who have airports in the vicinity of their constituency, but by those who would like more development of regional airports, to which the Government are wholly committed and feel is important.

  541
  In the light of those debates, I commend the Bill to the House and trust that hon. Members will agree to give it a Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At column 405 of yesterday's Hansard, 31 January, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) complained to Mr. Speaker that he understood that, without any notification, the Minister had made an attack on him, and that he regretted that. I understand that, in the previous debate today, the hon. Member for Bradford, South attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) without warning. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule whether it is in order for a failed Minister, failed Member and failed Member of the European Parliament, with one of the most marginal seats in the country, to complain one day that he is being attacked without warning, and the very next day to attack one of my right hon. Friends without any warning?
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that point of order is in order, is it in order for the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) to use exactly the same type of language about my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)?
  Mr. Michael Stern: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke and I did the hon. Member for Bradford, South the courtesy of advising him that we intended to raise this issue. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule whether it is customary in the House to raise points of order affecting individual members of other parties, without doing what we had the courtesy to do?
  Mr. Roger King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With reference to that same extract from Hansard, is it in order for a colleague in the House to eulogise his past achievements when his track record indicates—as I personally experienced as a small business man at the time—that he was quite outstandingly the worst Minister with responsibility for small businesses that there has ever been? For such a person to present a case in the House about one of the finest Ministers there has ever been is surely a gross error. Does the House recall that, prior to the hon. Member for Bradford, South being a Minister with responsibility for small businesses, he took on the job after the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) had jumped into the Mersey rather than support the Labour Government in their desire to join the European Community?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Eulogies of past achievements are not unknown in this place. I can confirm to all the hon. Members who raised points of order that it is customary, if an hon. Member wishes to criticise another hon. Member, for him to give notice to him or her before doing so.

First Aid Training (Schools)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
10.48 pm
Mr. John Browne: It is always a great honour to have a subject chosen for discussion by the House. I am grateful that my subject was selected for debate this evening. I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is here to reply to the debate—first, because, as we all know, he has a high reputation for care in the community, particularly of school pupils. Secondly, I well remember his able presentation of prizes to winners of the St. John Ambulance three-cross award at Britannic house a few weeks ago an award sponsored by British Petroleum. I remember how well he did so, how well it was received and how well the event was organised by the director general of St. John Ambulance, Mr. Robert Balchin, and his able wife who organised the school pupils in a convincing way. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with that.
I wish to declare two interests—one in the health industry and the other as the unremunerated parliamentary representative for the Order of St. John, which is the parent body of the St. John Ambulance Association and Brigade. The subject before us is first aid in schools. Two points are involved. The first is the teaching of first aid to school pupils. Under the new national curriculum, that could be included in the optional subjects. The second point is that some core subjects lend themselves to a certain amount of first aid. For example, to facilitate safe instruction in science there may be some leaning towards protection and first aid. Another example of physical education, where first aid might be involved in swimming activities.
I welcome the fact that the National Curriculum Council is to give guidance on first aid. I also welcome any moves in schools towards the teaching of first aid with the one, two and three-cross awards of St. John for children of six, 10, 12 and beyond. That has been highly successful.
The main thrust of the debate relates not so much to the teaching of first aid, although that is important as to the first aid cover available for school pupils. The Government have wisely pushed preventive medicine in diet, screening processes and so on. I welcome the fact that the National Health Service is being streamlined, which makes it more efficient and effective in offering health care.
First aid is part of the whole process of preventive medicine. If it is correctly administered, first aid can minimise damage—for example, by restraining the loss of blood which, if excessive, could lead to brain damage. It can also reduce the long-term knock-on costs to the NHS. If an injury is properly treated immediately it happens, there may be less long-term damage to the patient and therefore much less long-term cost to the NHS. Of course, the most important prerequisite is that it is correctly applied, so training is absolutely vital. If it is wrongly applied, it could be extremely dangerous and could even cause death. For example, if someone with spinal or neck injuries is moved incorrectly, he could easily be killed.
Training in first aid is offered by the British Red Cross Society and the St. John Ambulance Association and Brigade. The latter is ably directed by Mr. Robert Balchin, who is well known to my hon. Friend the Minister. First aid means the local availability of qualified first aiders.
544
Training to become a qualified first aider takes about three days. First aid also means the location and the contents of first aid boxes. It also means the publication of lists and telephone numbers of local general practitioners and local casualty stations. We must always remember that first aid is not simply the ability to dial 999 for the emergency services; it is much more than that.
There are more than 250,000 accidents in the United Kingdom every year, which represent a serious drain on the resources of the National Health Service. That is a clear example of the need for the wider availability of qualified first aid cover. To meet that historical but increasing need, previous Governments introduced the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which requires that places employing more than 150 people must have at their disposal at least one qualified first aider.
When I examined that legislation, I was stunned to discover that no such cover is required in schools. There are some 8·5 million school pupils in this country, and the absence of any legal requirement for first aid cover in respect of those young people concerns me. I would have thought that a school was inherently more dangerous than a bank. Short of a hold-up, a bank is a relatively safe place to work. A member of the staff could get electrocuted by a computer, but the same is true of a pupil using a school's computer, which might be less well insulated electrically.
Young people of school age are also more prone to accidents. It is often at school that, for the first time, young people light matches and illicitly smoke cigarettes—when there is a risk of their clothes catching fire and of other accidents. Youngsters also swallow things that they should not, break their legs, and so on. The school age population is more prone to accidents than the employees of an industrial or commercial company.
The record shows that last year there were more than 8,000 accidents in schools—some of them fatal, and all of them serious. That figure does not include minor accidents. But while there is a legal requirement for first aid cover in industry, no such requirement exists in respect of schools, at which 8·5 million pupils work. Instead, the Government rely on guidelines that are essentially voluntary.
In the past, Governments have resisted the temptation to legislate, preferring to rely on voluntary co-operation. What is the result of that approach? The St. John Ambulance Brigade undertook a survey of 13,000 out of the country's 23,500 schools—18,500 of which are primary schools. St. John received 4,256 replies, which statistically is an excellent sample. What is not so excellent is what the sample reveals.
It showed that only 32 per cent. of schools follow the Government's voluntary guidelines. Worse still is the mirror image of the 68 per cent. of schools that do not follow them. The survey also revealed that 76 per cent.—or more than three quarters—of all schools do not have the first aid cover that is required by law of commerce and industry under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It showed also that 20 per cent., or one fifth, of the schools have no cover by a qualified first aider. Those figures suggest that the Government's guidelines are not being observed but are being honoured in the breach.
The guidelines also require the display of lists of local general practitioners and casualty stations, but the survey shows that 72 per cent., or just under three quarters, of schools do not display such information. Indeed, 63 per cent. of the schools do not even have the lists.

545
In summary, the facts show that when schools are not required to have the same cover as industry, they do not bother. Why is there such discrimination? Why do the Government allow a voluntary regime for schools while there are legal requirements for industry and commerce?
The Government guidelines are not working. Obviously there is a need to strengthen the law, beef up the health and safety at work regulations, extend them to schools and make the voluntary guidelines legal requirements. That is a priority need, as was demonstrated in the last Session of Parliament, when I tabled an early-day motion which received the cross-party support of no fewer than 336 hon. Members. It was the 11th most strongly supported early-day motion since records began. Surely that must tell the Government that the House really feels that action should be taken as a matter of priority.
I urge the Government to amend the legislation to bring schools up to the standards of places of work. As I said, Ministers have resisted demands for change on two grounds—cost and excessive work load on the schools. The costs are very small. The training to qualify as a first aider costs roughly £70. A qualification lasts for three years, so for a school of 150 or more pupils and staff, the cost would be £70 spread over three years, or about £25 a year. I appreciate that the Government have made many changes in education, including the introduction of the national curriculum and first aid provision would require extra effort on the part of school administrators and staff. I do not say it lightly, but I believe that that added duty should be introduced because it is a priority—even above some of the duties they are already being asked to undertake.
In allocating that requirement I urge my hon. Friend to consider three things: need, priority and precedent. As I have said, the need is obvious. There are 8,000 serious accidents in schools each year; 8·5 million schoolchildren are vulnerable and, under the voluntary system, three quarters of the schools are not offering the first aid cover that is required legally of industry and commerce. The priority is that old adage, "safety first", and 336 right hon. and hon. Members believe that we must put safety first now as a matter of priority. Finally, there are precedents. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act already applies to industry and commerce, so why should it not apply to schools?
I am asking the Minister to overturn any advice he may have received to continue avoiding the extension of the regulations on the grounds of cost and excess work load. I am asking him to act now in response to a really obvious market need and in response to demands from the House. I am asking him to give 8·5 million schoolchildren in the United Kingdom safety first in their schools now. I very much look forward to a robust reply from my hon. Friend. I hope that he will fill that urgent need for schoolchildren and the priority demand by Members of the House to put safety first.
11.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on raising on the Adjournment a topic of the greatest interest and importance to us all—the safety of
546
schoolchildren. His championship of first aid in schools is well known. I hope that what I have to say will give him and other hon. Members some reassurance about the seriousness with which the Government approach this question.
The debate covers two separate but related matters—the provision of first aid in schools and the teaching of first aid in the curriculum. I shall deal with each in turn.
First, the debate covers the regulations that govern the provision of first aid in places of employment and how these relate to the situation in schools and other educational establishments. I am sure that the House will agree that, for any such arrangements to be effective, they must be seen as primarily the responsibility of those who are directly providing the services concerned. That is, indeed, the case under our law. The responsibility falls, in the case of maintained schools, to the local education authorities to ensure that proper arrangements are made, and, in the case of other sorts of school, to the relevant governors or other providers of the schools.
I shall go into more detail later about the nature of those legal responsibilities and the moral responsibilities that stem from them. Meanwhile, what implication has this for the role of the Department of Education and Science and other education departments?
There is, first, a valuable inspectorial function to be carried out, and I pay tribute to members of Her Majesty's inspectorate for the work done in their day-to-day monitoring of the system and in the advice they give, drawing on that experience, to authorities.
Secondly, there is a further role for the Department and for other education departments in making sure that the system has available to it an up-to-date and useful range of guidance on all important safety matters. My Department's "Safety in Education" series has provided regular bulletins of advice for teachers to help them to be more aware of the kind of hazards they are likely to meet at their work and to cope with accidents and emergencies occurring at school. I pay tribute to the many teachers who have displayed great presence of mind and great practical skill in some very difficult situations in recent days and particularly last week during the great storm.
We also issue a range of publications going into more detail on particular aspects of safety. The most recent of these, concerned with safety in outdoor education, was published last year. It has been our practice to include in each of these publications a specific section on first aid.
Nevertheless, a little while ago it became clear to the Department that local education authorities and others would benefit from more specific guidance on various matters concerning the provision of first aid. Accordingly, following an extensive consultative exercise that included some extremely valuable assistance given by the St. John Ambulance and the British Red Cross Society, the Department of Education and Science, together with the Welsh Office and in co-operation with the Health and Safety Executive, sent all chief education officers in England and Wales a document of guidance on arrangements for first-aid provision in schools and colleges. At the same time, the document was sent to relevant organisations in the non-LEA sector.
It may be useful if I look briefly at the main content of that document. First, it provided advice on an issue that clearly concerns hon. Members—the background of legislation, regulation and common law. In particular it drew attention to the desirability of paying heed to Health

547
and Safety Executive guidelines on such matters as the contents of first-aid boxes, and specifically recommended that education authorities should take account of criteria laid down in the approved code of practice stemming from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Next, the document gave information on other relevant publications and other useful materials, such as films and videos produced by a range of agencies with an interest in this area, including the Health and Safety Executive, the British Red Cross Society and St. John Ambulance.
Next, we thought it right to lay emphasis on the resources needed for proper first-aid provision and in particular on the need for suitable training for teachers. As the document says:
"it has been a long-standing principle that all teachers should have a basic working knowledge of first aid and for them to be able to recognise situations where medical advice is necessary. It is highly desirable that a proportion of the teaching staff of every school and college should have attended a course of training and have acquired a relevant certificate."
That clearly states the Department's policy over the years on the importance of proper training for teachers in each establishment. The document describes in greater detail what should be done and gives some practical recommendations about particular types of training that may be helpful.
The next section of the document provides guidance on the very important question of procedures, including arrangements for contact with medical and other emergency services, and suggests some practical measures, such as displaying up-to-date lists of addresses and telephone numbers, which could easily be followed and with little resource implicaton. Advice is also provided on procedural matters such as the recording of accidents, which is a most important consideration if lessons for the future are to be learned. There follow sections on the prevention of accidents, on the particular problems created by the AIDS virus and a reference to the particular treatment needed for children with special needs of various kinds.
The final component in the document is a checklist of 15 important questions, which were aimed at individual establishments rather than local education authorities, with the intention of prompting them to think again about their practices and procedures.
I hope that that brief account of the Department's most recent comprehensive publication will reassure my hon. Friend that this is not an issue which the Department is reluctant to consider or on which we are backward in giving a lead.
Mr. John Browne: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howarth: Will my hon. Friend allow me to proceed'? I have little time left.
As my hon. Friend said, our friends in the St. John Ambulance organisation like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to Mr. Robert Balchin—reported to us last year on the results of a survey that they had undertaken of a large number of schools, and which, among other things, looked at how the schools were in practice implementing certain of the Department's recommendations, including some of those that I mentioned.
The picture that emerged was mixed, with generally good practice on some issues, such as the response to the AIDS threat, and a less obviously adequate response on other matters, including some simple ones such as the
548
provision of notices about emergency procedures. I am bound to say that, like my hon. Friend, I was disappointed overall by what it indicated—that there was some way to go before we could be confident that the schools and other educational establishments were doing all that they reasonably could to observe the best practice.
My Department has accordingly undertaken a consultation exercise, on the basis of the St. John's findings, with a number of relevant national bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Welsh Office and the main local education authority associations, in order to consider jointly what further steps might sensibly be taken.
We have already received a number of responses to that, but the consultative exercise is not yet complete and it will need to be followed by careful consideration of the options for change or further action.
One obvious subject for further consideration is the regulatory background to first-aid provision in schools. Perhaps I could remind the House what the present position broadly is, as there is a certain amount of mythology on that point. First, it is not the case, as is sometimes claimed, that schools or other educational establishments are exempt from the general provisions of the main relevant statute, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend on this important point. Like all other places where people are employed, they are covered by those general requirements, which require employers to have regard for the health arid safety not only of employees who are on their premises but of other persons. In the case of schools and colleges, the latter category obviously includes students or pupils who are on the premises.
The confusion has arisen because of the detailed provisions on first aid set out in the approved code of practice accompanying the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981, which come from the 1974 Act. The requirement concerning provision for 150 or more employees is in the code of practice. Again, in the nature of things, that requirement is unlikely to bite other than on the largest schools.
But it is sometimes forgotten that there is another and, in my view, at least equally important legal provision that applies to the schools but does not apply to employment generally. That is the common law doctrine of in loco parentis, which has the effect of placing on those responsible for schools a duty of care towards pupils in their charge of a kind that a responsible parent would expect to carry out.
That is a fact that we shall certainly have to bear in mind in considering the outcome of the consultative process to which I have referred. Would an overt attempt to equate educational institutions more closely with industrial and commercial premises with respect to safety be a positive move in practice? I stress that we shall look at the issue in an open-minded way.
Inevitably, an important consideration in looking at the way forward will be the issue of resources, whether of staffing costs or others, and we shall have to pay careful attention to what the local authority providers say to us on that point. I am sure that there will be many opportunities in the House to look further into those matters.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of first-aid education for pupils taking place in schools. I have no doubt that schools have a significant part to play in providing young people with guidance about first aid.

549
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has estimated that over 500,000 people are admitted to hospital each, year for accidental or other violent injuries. A further 11 million new cases are dealt with by hospital accident and emergency departments annually. Those figures demonstrate the value of first-aid skills among the general population. There is no doubt that they can help enormously in relation to both minor and life-threatening accidents and injuries.
My hon. Friend spoke of the preventive value of first aid in terms of saving health and resources that can be put to better use. He also referred to the work of St. John Ambulance in connection with first-aid education in schools and the fact that he and I recently attended the launch of the new St. John Ambulance video on emergency aid for use in its three cross award.
My Department has been associated with that award since its inception in 1984, the scheme having been launched originally by my noble Friend Lord Joseph when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that since then, over 200,000 children have taken part in the award scheme. St. John Ambulance is to be congratulated on the success of the award in such a relatively short space of time.
550
Whether or not schools cover first aid in the curriculum is, of course, at present a matter for individual schools to determine. That is likely in the main still to be the case under the new national curriculum, but there will be opportunities for schools to cover first aid as a direct result of a number of provisions contained in the national curriculum.
All the foundation subject working groups so far established have been asked to cover relevant aspects of health and safety education in their recommendations. My hon. Friend referred to specific aspects of the national curriculum.
In recent years, education about first aid has increasingly featured in the context of personal and social education. I know that this is often the case with the St. John Ambulance three-cross award. PSE is an area which the Government regard as particularly important. As a result, the National Curriculum Council is in the process of issuing guidance to all schools on the place and content of PSE in the curriculum. I understand that it is likely to include guidance on the need for education about first aid, and that is also to be welcomed.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 14 December 1989,Official Report, column 751, if he will list separately the contracts that have been extended rather than re-let by (a) the Property Services Agency, (b) the Crown Suppliers and (c) the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Chope
  Thirty of the 47 contracts reported in column 751 of the Official Report for 14 December 1989 as exempt from advertising were extended, all by the Crown Suppliers. The contracts extended were as follows:

  Furniture (office, kitchen and storage)—12 extensions at £5,375,964

  Fitted bedroom furniture (Benbow range)—2 extensions at £3,002,000

  Office and display equipment—5 extensions at £2,651,923 Cleaning materials and equipment—6 extensions at £1,641,240

  Clothing uniforms—3 extensions at £583,000

  Electrical equipment—1 extension at £850,000

  Paint—1 extension at £197,000.

  Lullingstone Roman Villa
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why Lullingstone Roman villa is closed.

  Mr. Trippier
  Lullingstone Roman villa was reopened to the public on 10 January 1990. It had been closed since March 1988 to enable essential health and safety work to be carried out, including the removal of asbestos cladding from the cover building. English Heritage is currently developing proposals for improvements in the presentation of the villa to the public.

  Hospital Incinerators
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take into account the anxieties of people living near to hospital incinerators when he undertakes consultations on standards of incineration.

  Mr. Trippier
  The local authority unit of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is currently drawing up guidance on standards for clinical waste incinerators which we propose to schedule for air pollution control under the Environmental Protection Bill. A wide range of bodies have been consulted, including the National Society for Clean Air, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, and individual local authorities. The Bill will give the public an opportunity to comment on applications for authorisation of individual incinerators and will substantially improve public access to information on scheduled plant.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the broad estimates of the amounts spent on pollution control and environmental improvement as a proportion of gross domestic product by the United Kingdom and other industrial countries.

  Mr. Trippier
  International comparisons of expenditure on environmental protection have been made by the OECD, which will shortly be publishing a report of its findings. The estimation of such expenditure involves many problems of definition, measurement and collection of data. Figures for the United Kingdom indicate that between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. of GNP is dedicated to environmental protection. Other OECD countries appear to spend a similar proportion, and there are no reliable indications that this has varied greatly over the past two decades.

  Wasteman 90 Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will be represented at the conference Wasteman 90 to be held in Birmingham between 20 and 22 February.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are aware of this conference, but there are no current plans for the Department to be represented. I have, however, provided a statement for the organisers to incorporate in the conference literature.

  Blue Circle Industries
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had in the last year with Blue Circle Industries plc over environmental protection matters.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list any planning appeals submitted by Blue Circle Industries plc or its subsidiaries which his Department is currently considering.

  Mr. Moynihan
  An appeal by Blue Circle Industries plc against an enforcement notice issued on 19 July 1989 by the Nottinghamshire county council is currently before the Secretary of State. Subsidiary companies are not identified as such in the Department's records.

  Community Care
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the formulae for calculating standard spending assessments for personal social services to take account of the proposed new responsibilities for community care services from April 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Changes to the standard spending assessment formula for personal social services for the elderly will be needed to take account of new responsibilities for community care. We will be discussing proposals for the change with the local authority associations in due course.

  Social Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, showing each figure in total and expressed as an amount per adult or relevant population(a) the standard spending assessments for 1990–91 for (i) personal social services, (ii) social services for children, (iii) social services for the elderly and (iv) other social services, (b) the actual spending for 1989–90 on (i) personal social services, (ii) social services for children, (iii) social services for the elderly and (iv) other social services and (c) the grant-related expenditure for 1989–90 on (i) personal social services, (ii) social services for children, (iii) social services for the elderly and (iv) other social services, for each social services authority in England; and if he will give in each case the information aggregated in respect of (1) shires, (2) metropolitan districts and (3) inner and outer London boroughs.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today placed two tables in the Library. One shows the 1990–91 personal social services standard spending assessments for each social services authority in England and for each class of authority; the other shows comparable information on the 1989–90 personal social service, grant-related expenditure assessments. Comparable information on personal social services spending for 1989–90 is not yet available.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many current members of the Nature Conservancy Council were appointed primarily on account of their commitment to or interest in(a) agriculture, (b) forestry, (c) country sports and (d) nature conservation.

  Mr. Trippier
  Members of the Nature Conservancy Council are appointed for the personal contribution they can make to the council's work. They are not appointed to represent a particular interest.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of the council of the Nature Conservancy Council there were at the date of the publication of the Nature Conservancy Council's annual report covering each of the years: 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89; and why he decided to increase by five the number of members of the council of the Nature Conservancy Council on 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows:

  Number of members of the Nature Conservancy Council on the date of publication and year covered in annual report

  Year and Date

  Number

  1981–82 29 April 1983

  14

  1982–83 1 December 1983

  14

  1983–84 1 October 1984

  14

  1984–85 20 November 1985

  12

  1985–86 20 October 1986

  15

  1986–87 26 October 1987

  14

  1987–88 14 November 1988

  15

  1988–89 14 November 1989

  18

  In making appointments to the council, account is taken of the range of expertise of its current members and the personal contributions which others can offer.

  Dogs
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the measures the Government have introduced over the last five years, including their geographical application, concerning the control of dog nuisance; and if he will set out the Government's future proposals and the time scale for their implementation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As to measures introduced over the last five years, these are as follows:

  (i) In 1987 revised model byelaws for dog control and the control of dog fouling in England and Wales were issued by the Home Office, including a new model byelaw requiring dog owners to clear up after their dogs in certain areas ("poop-scoop byelaws").

  (ii) Section 39 of the Local Government Act 1988 gave duly authorised officers of local authorities in England and Wales powers to seize, detain and dispose of stray dogs.

  (iii) The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 includes provisions which strengthen the existing legislation relating to the control of dangerous dogs in England, Scotland and Wales.

  As to future proposals, the Environmental Protection Bill includes a new duty on local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to keep public land clear of litter and refuse—the term "refuse" for this part of the Bill can, by order of the Secretary of State, include canine faeces. In 1989 consultation papers entitled "Action on Dogs" were issued both for Scotland and for England and Wales. These set out various proposals for the control of dogs including in particular a new duty on local authorities to collect up and deal with stray dogs.

  Copies of both these consultation papers have been placed in the House of Commons Library. We are considering how to take forward the proposals contained in them.

  Municipal Water Treatment
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy not to block the European Community directive No. 10139/89 when it is discussed by the Council of Ministers;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to support European Community directive No. 10139/89 on municipal water treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Details of the draft directive were set out in the explanatory memorandum (10139/89) which was placed in the Vote Office on 27 December. The Government support the objective of the proposal, which is to prevent the environment from being adversely affected by municipal waste water discharges, and expect to play a constructive part in the discussion of the proposal by the Council of Ministers.

  Waste (Duty of Care)
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for a code of practice under clause 26 of the Environmental Protection Bill on the duty of care as respects waste.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department and the Welsh Office have today published a draft code of practice for public consultation under clause 26 of the Environmental Protection Bill. Clause 26 puts a new legal duty of care on
  245
  anyone who has waste, from producers through carriers to disposers. The code gives advice and examples on the practical measures that those under the new duty should take.

  Examples of what is recommended in the code include:
  Waste left out for collection or being transported should not be allowed to blow around or fall off, it should be put in containers or covered up securely;
  All firms which produce waste should know what it is composed of, or should commission an analysis;
  Firms should check up on the bona fides of anyone they give their waste to; they should see and check their certificate of registration as a carrier or their waste management licence;
  If firms see or suspect that someone is fly-tipping their waste, they should stop handing any waste to that person and warn the local authority;
  If anyone knows that their waste requires special treatment, for example, clinical waste from hospitals—the National Health Service will not be exempt—then they must take action to ensure that it receives that treatment.

  The code of practice will be admissible as evidence in court in prosecutions for breach of the duty of care. Anyone convicted of breaching the duty of care will face the possibility of an unlimited fine.

  Private householders will not be affected by the new duty as far as their own household waste is concerned.

  The Bill's new duty of care and this accompanying code of practice are the most radical step ever taken to ensure that waste is legally dealt with.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any announcement to make about the chairmanship of the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am pleased to inform the House that I have appointed Sir Christopher Benson to succeed Sir Hugh Cubitt as chairman of the Housing Corporation with effect from 1 May 1990. The appointment will be for three years. In the meantime, Sir Christopher will become a member of the board with effect from today. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Sir Hugh Cubitt for the outstanding contribution he has made to the work of the corporation and the housing association movement over the past 10 years.

  Private Homes (Casual Use)
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide for the casual use of private homes for bed and breakfast purposes to be exempt from the new business rate.

  Mr. David Hunt
  We intend to provide that bed and breakfast accommodation offered in someone's own home which is available for fewer than 100 days in a year will not be subject to the new business rate. This fulfils the commitment given by my noble Friend the then Minister of State during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 through Parliament that limited use of domestic property to provide bed and breakfast accommodation should not lead to the property being assessed for non-domestic rating. An order will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the effect of his decision to bring forward payments of revenue support grant on the average community charge in 1990–91.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 16 January 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 26 January, at column 923. The total cash flow advantage to local authorities is about £180 million compared with 'the profiles originally proposed for 1990–91, which would have enabled authorities to achieve a profile of income through the year from grant, business rates and community charges equal to expenditure.

  Water Meters
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total cost so far for the water meter trials approved by his Department; and if he will give the cost of each trial area.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is estimated that the total cost of the metering trials will be about £20 million. The latest estimated cost of each trial is as follows:

  £

  Isle of Wight (Southern Water)

  16,134,000

  Chandlers Ford (Southern Water)

  125,000

  Chorleywood (Rickmansworth Water Company)

  220,000

  Bristol-Hotwells (Bristol Waterworks Company)

  332,000

  Haling Park (Thames Water)

  756,000

  Bromsgrove (East Worcestershire Waterworks Company)

  383,000

  Brookmans Park (Lee Valley Water Company)

  695,000

  Turlin Moor (Wessex Water)

  197,000

  Broadstone (Wessex Water)

  300,000

  Camberley (Mid Southern Water Company)

  346,000

  Hutton Rudby (Northumbrian Water)

  251,000

  South Normanton (Yorkshire Water)

  480,000

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the 12 meter trials for domestic water charges have had the meters installed and are now being charged for water and sewage treatment by meter; and if he will list those which are completed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The installation of meters is complete and the customers are being charged by measure in 10 of the 12 trials. The installation of 52,000 meters in the Isle of Wight trial is not expected to be completed until the late summer but Southern Water has phased the introduction of metered billing in different areas of the island as meters are installed. Charging by measure in the South Normanton trial is due to start on 1 April 1991. The trials are due to end in 1993.

TRANSPORT

  Night Sleeper Rail Service
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had regarding the night sleeper rail service from Belfast to London via Larne-Stranraer.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail has kept this Department informed about plans to withdraw sleeper services from
  247
  the Stranraer-Glasgow part of this route. I understand that BR intends to provide connecting services between Stranraer and the Glasgow-London sleeper services.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made to British Rail regarding withdrawal of the London-Stranraer night service.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are aware of British Rail's plans to withdraw the sleeper service between Stranraer and Glasgow and to provide a connecting service from Stranraer to the Glasgow-London sleeper service. This is a commercial matter for BR.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was collected in tolls last year on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Atkins
  Tolls collected in 1988–89 amounted to £.10.1 million.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated completion date for the current renovation and maintenance work on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Atkins
  Strengthening work on the Severn crossing will be completed in March 1990. The resurfacing work is due to be completed by late 1990/early 1991. Routine maintenance work on the bridge will continue.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what items of repair and renovation have been completed on the Severn bridge in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Atkins
  The last 12 months have seen the replacement of cables and the rocker bearings on the Wye bridge and completion of hanger replacement on the Severn bridge. The Wye bridge towers have been extended in height, the Severn bridge towers strengthened and pier protection works undertaken. Strengthening of the steel decks on both structures has been substantially completed.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work is currently under way on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Atkins
  Current work includes the jacking of supports in the Severn bridge towers, the resurfacing of the entire crossing and replacement and improvement of safety barriers and expansion joints.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much is the accumulated debt on the Severn bridge at the latest available date;

  (2) how much the debt on the Severn bridge was last year.

  Mr. Atkins
  The unaudited accounts show a debt to the Consolidated Fund of £113·4 million at 31 March 1989.

  London Assessment Studies
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what resources have been set aside by his Department for publicity and consultation on stage 2B of the London assessment studies and its document "Traffic in London".
  248
  Mr. Atkins
  No separate provision has been made for costs incurred by the Department and its consultants on the current consultation exercise on stage 2B of the London assessment studies and on the document "Traffic in London", which fall within the appropriate departmental budgets.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department will reimburse the full costs to local authorities in London of undertaking publicity and consultation on stage 2B of the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Expenditure incurred by local authorities in producing their own leaflets and holding public meetings on these subjects is entirely a matter for them.

  Body Searches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many body contact searches are conducted under the Aviation Security Act 1982 for any given year;

  (2) how many complaints have been received about the conduct of searches of persons carried out under the Aviation Security Act 1982; what form the complaints procedure on searches takes; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what monitoring procedures are in place to ensure that the standards and code of conduct set out in the aviation security handbook are followed by security personnel conducting searches of persons under the Aviation Security Act 1982.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has used his powers under the Act to give directions to aerodrome managers and aircraft operators requiring them to ensure that, apart from a limited range of exceptions, all passengers are screened before being permitted to board aircraft at airports covered by the national aviation security programme, and that staff and other personnel are screened before being permitted to enter restricted areas at the major airports. In many cases the persons concerned are required to pass through metal detection equipment and will not necessarily be searched by hand. No record is kept of the number who are hand searched.

  The directions require the screening to be carried out, and lay down the standards to be achieved. The aviation security inspectorate makes regular inspections to ensure that these requirements are met.

  The directions do not, however, set out the detailed procedures to be followed or the facilities to be provided to minimise any embarrassment to those selected for hand searching. A certain amount of general guidance on this is included in the aviation security handbook issued by the Department, but essentially these matters are management ones and therefore the responsibility of the airports and airlines.

  The Department receives a small number of complaints each year about the procedures adopted, or the facilities provided, by individual airports. The number of such complaints is not recorded.

  Aviation Security Act
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often the power contained in section 15(5) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 has been used by him and
  249
  airport authorities; what is the average duration of an order or licence granted under the power; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None of the directions given under the Act to date has included the provisions mentioned in section 15(5).

  Humber Bridge Authority
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Humber Bridge Authority concerning the settlement of its debt.

  Mr. Atkins
  Officials of my Department and officers of the Humber Bridge Board have been working together to produce financial projections with a view to the bridge board presenting a reasoned case for special Government financial assistance.

  Mersey Tunnel
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current debt on the Mersey tunnel.

  Mr. Atkins
  The debts of the Mersey tunnels amounted to £117 million at 31 March 1989.

  British Rail (Investment)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much of British Rail's investment programme of £3·75 billion will be financed from its own internally generated cash flow, excluding payments from passenger transport executives under section 20 of the Transport Act 1968 in respect of services operated by British Rail in metropolitan areas;

  (2) how much of British Rail's investment programme of £3·75 billion will be financed by passenger transport executives under section 20 of the Transport Act 1968 in respect of services operated by British Rail in metropolitan areas;

  (3) how much of British Rail's investment programme of £3·75 billion will be financed externally; and whether the external finance will have to meet the Treasury's criteria of an 8 per cent. rate of return.

  Mr. Portillo
  Over the next three years, British Rail plans to finance net operating losses of some £0·7 billion and investment of £3·75 billion. Internal resources from depreciation, working capital reductions and asset sales will provide £2 billion. External finance from borrowing and PSO grant will provide £2·2 billion. PTE payments will total £0·25 billion. We do not specifically apportion particular forms of finance between investment and other expenditure. The appraisal criteria for BR investment depend on the nature of the project, not on how it is financed.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what cash resources he plans to allocate to British Rail to invest in advanced train protection, resignalling, and other safety measures recommended by the Hidden report.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 4 December 1989, at column 88. As my right hon. Friend has told the House, finance will not stand in the way of implementing the report.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits on his votes.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limits for my votes are to be changed as follows:

  Class and Vote

  Current cash limit

  Changes

  £ thousands Revised cash limit

  1

  1,370,744

  1–2,000

  1,368,744

  2

  238,869

  2–3,115

  235,754

  VIII 4

  131,398

  34,744

  136,142

  5

  218,707

  4621

  219,328

  Total

  5250

  1 The cash limit has been reduced by £2 million to offset in part increased expenditure required on the Department's other cash limits. Authority for additional expenditure of £17,892,000 which will be met by increased appropriations in aid, will, however, be sought in a spring supplementary estimate, to meet faster than expected progress with schemes included in the roads programme.

  2 Mainly in respect of running costs provision transferred to class VIII, 4. The overall running costs limit of the Department remains unchanged.

  3 Mainly increased requirement for running costs provision transferred from class VIII, 2.

  4 Mainly increased requirement for demand-determined rural bus grants.

  5 Transfer from the Department of the Environment cash limit UAl in respect of that Department's contribution towards the £500,000 grant to Thamesline announced on 23 February 1989, at column 729, and included in vote 2.

  The changes do not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Home Report
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to bring forward legislation to implement the findings of the Home report.

  Mr. Atkins
  It remains our intention to introduce legislation to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 along the lines of the proposals contained in the consultation paper issued in May, a copy of which is in the Library. A Bill will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found.

  Litter
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken to ensure the removal of litter from motorway verges and central reservations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's code of practice for routine maintenance prescribes the frequency with which its agents are required to clear litter from motorways. Frequencies vary according to local circumstances and are currently being reviewed with the aim of improving sections of road with the worst litter problems.

  The Government propose to amend the Environmental Protection Bill so as to place a specific duty on the Crown to keep its land, including motorways, clear of litter.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Churches
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby as representing the Church Commissioners, how many churches have become redundant, or ceased to hold religious services, over the last six months.

  Mr. Alison
  Ten churches were declared redundant, and therefore ceased to be available for public worship, during the six months to 31 December 1989. Over 16,000 churches remain open for public worship.

EMPLOYMENT

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report, a table showing the percentage increase in real incomes since 1979 of (i) median full-time adult male hospital porters, (ii) male and female primary school teachers, (iii) male locomotive drivers and motormen, (iv) footplate staff, (v) NHS male ancillary staff, (vi) NHS male maintenance staff, (vii) female hospital ward orderlies, (viii) female welfare workers, and (ix) local authority male manual workers in England and Wales.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates of the increases in real earnings since 1979 are provided in the table:

  Percentage increase 1979–89

  Median of Gross Weekly Earnings by Occupation

  Full-time males on adult rates

  Primary teachers

  38

  Hospital porters

  3

  Locomotive drivers and motormen

  24

  Full-time females on adult rates

  Primary teachers

  42

  Welfare workers

  35

  Hospital ward orderlies

  —2

  Median of Gross Weekly Earnings by Agreement

  Full-time males on adult rates

  Footplate staff

  33

  NHS ancillary staff

  1

  NHS maintenance staff

  16

  Local authority manual workers England and Wales

  8

  Note:

  New earnings survey data deflated by RPI (all items) April of each year.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the percentage increase in real incomes since 1979 of median adult male manual employees in the (i) footwear, (ii) textile, clothing, (iii) mechanical engineering, (iv) motor vehicle industries, (v) study, etc. officers, (vi) accountants, (vii) journalists, (viii) estimators, etc. and (ix) finance, etc. specialists.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates of the increases in real earnings since 1979 for manual males are provided in the table. Categories (v) to (ix) are non-manual occupations.
  252

  Median of gross weekly earnings by industry

  Percentage increase 1979–89

  Full-time manual males on adult rates

  Footwear

  13

  Textiles

  4

  Clothing

  2

  Mechanical engineering

  14

  Motor vehicle industries

  18

  Note:

  1. New earnings survey data deflated by RPI (all items) April of each year.

  Supplementary Grants
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes have occurred in supplementary grants to large contractors in 1989–90.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In common with other contractors for employment training, each large contractor's supplementary grant levels were reviewed, and new levels agreed, in contracts for 1989–90.

  Rochdale Borough
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement regarding the current level of unemployment in Rochdale borough; and how many people in the borough of Rochdale have been unemployed for more than a year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is available from the Library. Unemployment by duration is analysed on a quarterly basis. The latest figures show that in October 1989 there were 2,520 unemployed claimants in the local authority area of Rochdale who had been unemployed for more than one year. The corresponding total number of unemployed claimants was 7,117.

  Long-term unemployment continues to fall at a faster rate than total unemployment.

  In December 1989 the total level of unemployment in the local authority area of Rochdale was 6,945.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those health authorities currently participating in ET as training agents, training managers or as placement providers; for the latter two groups what is the number of contracted and filled places at the latest date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am aware of 11 health authorities currently participating in ET as training managers. These are listed with details of contracted and filled places at 12 January 1990:

  Health authority ( HA)

  Contracted places

  Filled places

  South Tees AHA

  250

  206

  Hartlepool

  100

  84

  South West Durham

  80

  67

  Mid Staffs

  50

  9

  North Staffs

  100

  67

  Hull

  50

  27

  West Glamorgan

  200

  93

  East Dyfed

  70

  37

  South Sefton

  440

  398

  253

  Health authority (HA)

  Contracted places

  Filled places

  Liverpool

  166

  170

  Southport and Formby

  85

  88

  I am not aware of any health authorities acting as training agents. Information is not available on health authorities acting as ET placement providers.

  Home Workers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers have been prosecuted for not registering their home workers with the environmental health department; whether he has any plans to introduce measures to strengthen the law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost from individual local authorities.

  The Government have no plans to extend the law which was originally part of the Factory and Workshop Act 1901—now section 133 of the Factories Act 1961—and was introduced to prevent the spread of infectious disease and infestations from the home. Home workers have the same legal protection for health and safety as other employees and self-employed workers under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many home workers' projects are in existence in England and Wales; what are their main tasks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Department is aware of a number of groups which promote the interests of home workers but does not systematically collect information about their numbers and activities.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many home workers the wages inspectorate visited in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1989 the wages inspectorate checked the pay of 874 home workers by means of visits to establishments putting out work. These checks involved subsequent visits to a sample of home workers concerned, but records are not kept of the number so visited.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial tribunal cases have been adjudicated in favour of home workers in the last year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many visits he or his predecessor made to home working projects in England and Wales in the past five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what industries in England and Wales employ the largest percentage of home workers; what are their main tasks; and what are the rates of pay in each of these industries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Figures showing those industries which employ the largest percentage of home workers and their 254
  occupations are not available for England and Wales. National estimates and occupational distributions can be found in tables 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7 and 3.8 of Department of Employment research paper No. 60 by Dr. Catherine Hakim entitled "Home-based Work in Britain: A report on the 1981 National Homeworking Survey and the DE research programme on homework". Tables 6.4 to 6.8 in that report provide information on earnings of home workers at the time the research was carried out. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library. General earnings data for these industries can be found in tables 8 and 9 of part A of the 1989 new earnings survey, a copy of which is in the Library, but these data do not distinguish home workers' earnings from the earnings of other workers.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to take to ensure that employers supplying work to home workers adhere to the Noise at Work Regulations 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Noise at Work Regulations apply to home workers in just the same way as to any other employee or self-employed person. When inspectors of health and safety visit employers, including those who employ home workers, they consider compliance with these regulations and take enforcement action where necessary.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of home workers the wages council found illegally underpaid for each of the past 10 years, by year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is shown as follows:

  Year

  Per Cent.

  1980

  6·23

  1981

  5·46

  1982

  8·32

  1983

  2·98

  1984

  6·47

  1985

  1·30

  1986

  0·58

  1987

  1·63

  1988

  1·03

  1989

  0·91

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to require employers to provide proper handling guidelines for any potentially dangerous glues and solvents that home workers may be required to use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provides a framework of legislative controls to protect all those at work including home workers.

  In addition, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 require all employers to assess risk, identify the precautions that employees have to take when handling hazardous substances and provide the employees with information about the risk and the precautions. These provisions extend to glues and solvents where these may be a hazard to health.

  Where home workers are self-employed, those supplying them with substances are required under section 6 of HSWA to provide adequate information about any risks to health and safety.
  255
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has formulated any definition of home working with regard to its present policies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Department regards home workers as those working at home rather than using home as a base. No more precise definition is currently in use.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Fontainebleau Agreement
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total rebate received by Britain under the terms of the Fontainebleau agreement for the last year for which figures are available; what is the total amount received since the agreement was signed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The United Kingdom's abatement was 1,780 million ecu—£1,150 million—in 1989, bringing to 8,630 million ecu—£5,770 million—the cumulative total under the Fontainebleau mechanism. The 1990 EC budget, as adopted, provides for an abatement of 2,430 million ecu—£1,800 million.

  Mr. G. A. Johnson
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 21 December 1989 referring to Mr. G. A. Johnson.

  Mr. Lilley
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter on 30 January.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will represent the Treasury at the economic and finance meetings of the Council of Ministers on 12 February, 12 March, 23 April, 11 June and 31 March; and what the agenda will be for each meeting.
  256
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: I or one of my fellow Treasury Ministers will be attending each of the meetings of the Economic and Finance Council. Agenda for these meetings are not fixed until shortly before they take place, but I would expect major topics of discussion over the coming months to include:
  economic and monetary union;
  the European bank for reconstruction and development;
  abolition of fiscal frontiers;
  revision of the financial perspectives for 1991 and 1992;
  and issues of budget discipline and management.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the Treasury would be if personal allowances were raised in line with the inflation rate.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 31 January 1990]: At 1990–91 levels of income, the cost of indexing personal allowances is estimated to be about £1,465 million in 1990–91 and £2,040 million in 1991–92. The additional cost of indexing the basic rate limit is £205 million in 1990–91 and £380 million in 1991–92.

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

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mark Woodward
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will instruct the coroner to reopen the inquest relating to the drowning of Mark Woodward on 16 August 1989 and instruct him to pay attention specifically to the tape recordings to and from Milford Haven recently released by Her Majesty's Coastguard.

  The Attorney-General
  If my hon. Friend will write to me with his reasons for believing that an application to the High Court is appropriate, I will consider the matter.

PRIME MINISTER

  Edmonton
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Edmonton.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Stevenage
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Stevenage.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the implementation of the Government's programme for reforming local government finance.

  The Prime Minister
  Good progress continues to be made on all aspects of the new arrangements. Comprehensive community charge registers have been compiled and charge payers notified of their entries. A £4 million information campaign has been launched to ensure maximum take-up of rebates and relief. The poundage for the uniform business rate has been set and new rating lists are available for public inspection. A circular has been issued with details of the new capital finance system and authorities have received their basic credit approvals. It is now for all local authorities to budget prudently in the light of the revenue support grant settlement approved by the House on 18 January, in the knowledge that they will be held to account by charge payers for excessive expenditure.

  Shipbuilding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals for changes in the European Community's sixth directive on aid to the shipbuilding industry; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is considering the revised levels of support that the Commission notified to member states on 18 January and will make a statement shortly.

  Leith
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to the port of Leith.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the Government's latest proposals to help the disabled.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security recently announced major proposals to improve social security help for people with disabilities. Our strategy is to improve the balance and structure of benefits for disabled people who are unable to work, and in particular to do more for those disabled from 258
  birth or early in life, and to improve the help given to those disabled people who can and want to work. The changes we propose to make include a new disability allowance for people of working age and below to extend help with the extra costs of being disabled; a new disability employment credit to make it easier for disabled people to take up jobs, and an increase of up to £10 a week in severe disablement allowance. Our proposals will give extra help to some 850,000 people and their net effect will be to add by 1993–94 some £300 million to the total cost of the benefits we pay to long-term sick and disabled people and their carers.

  North-east England
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next plans to pay an official visit to the north-east.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to visit the north-east during the course of the year.

  Jobs
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the latest assessments prepared by the EEC Commission on the impact of 1992 on jobs.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on Tuesday 30 January.

  Pay Review Bodies
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the latest reports of the pay review bodies.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1990 reports of the review bodies on the pay of nursing staff, midwives and health visitors, the professions allied to medicine, the doctors and dentists, and the armed forces, and of the Top Salaries Review Body, have been published today. Copies are now available in the Vote Office. The Government are grateful to members of the review bodies for these reports and the time and care which they put into their preparation.

  The table shows the overall increases recommended by the review bodies for each group, and their cost:

  Pay bill increase in 1990–91

  Range of increase

  1 Uniied Kingdom public expenditure cost

  percent

  percent

  £ million

  Armed forces

  10·9

  4·1—23.0

  458

  Doctors and dentists2

  10·9

  9·5—15·2

  423

  Professions allied to medicine

  10·1

  8·7—14·7

  61

  Nursing staff, midwives and health visitors

  9·6

  3 8·9—16·0

  630

  Top salaries4

  11·0

  7·0—18·7

  10

  1 The figures for public expenditure cost differ from those in the Review Bodies' reports. Their figures do not include some costs which count as public expenditure.

  2 Payments to GPs for achieving higher targets for immunisation and cervical screening are recommended by the Review Body as outside intended average remuneration. The payments would add some 0·3 per cent. to the total pay bill and are included in the £423 million.

  3 A very few young staff would receive higher increases of up to 19·7per cent.

  4 These figures assume that the additional increase of 10 per cent.recommended for Groups 5—7 of the judiciary is phased over two years, with 5 per cent. paid on 1 April 1990.

  259
  The Government consider that the overall pay cost in the year 1990–91 implied by these recommendations if implemented in full immediately would be too high. They have therefore decided that the general approach should be to implement the recommendations in full during the year but to stage them so that most groups receive an increase of 7 per cent. from 1 April 1990 with the balance from 1 January 1991.

  In the case of the review body on armed forces the Government have decided to accept the recommendations but their implementation will be staged so that 7 per cent. is paid from 1 April 1990 and the remaining 1·7 to 2·5 per cent. of the basic increase together with additional payments is paid from 1 January 1991.

  The Government have decided to accept with two exceptions the recommendations of the review body on doctors and dentists, but to stage their implementation so that 7 per cent. is payable in all cases from 1 April 1990 and the remainder of the increases of between 2·5 and 4·5 per cent. plus other payments, depending on the group, from 1 January 1991. The exceptions are the recommendations that the Government rejected last year for extra increases at the top of the consultants' scale and in the size of consultants' distinction awards. It is still the Government's view that the additional 100 permanent consultant posts which are now being created will best achieve the objective of improving the long-term career structure for hospital doctors.

  The Government have decided to accept the recommendations of the review body on nursing staff, midwives and health visitors but to stage their implementation so that from 1 April 1990, 7 per cent. is payable to all and in addition the recommendation for changes in London pay and some extra increases in the pay of student nurses take effect from that date. The remaining
  2 per cent. of the basic increase and other additional payments will be paid from 1 January 1991.

  The Government have decided to accept the recommendations of the review body on professions allied to medicine but to stage their implementation so that from 1 April 1990, 7 per cent. is payable to all and in addition the recommendation for changes in London pay takes effect. The remaining increase of 2·75 per cent. and other additional payments will be paid from 1 January 1991.

  The Government have decided to accept the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body but to stage their implementation. The basic increase of 7 per cent. recommended for all groups will be payable as to 6 per cent. from 1 April 1990 and 1 per cent. from 1 January 1991. In addition, for senior civil servants the abolition of the fixed scale increments for grades 2 and 3 will take effect from 1 April 1990; the increases in the London allowance for grade 3, and the consequential increases for grade 2, will take effect from 1 January 1991; and the new performance pay scheme for grades 2 and 3 will be introduced from 1 April 1991. For two and three-star officers, the additional increases of 2·75 per cent. will take effect from 1 January 1991. For judges, the extra increase of 10 per cent. recommended for those in groups 5 to 7 will be staged with payments on 1 January 1991, 1 August 1991 and 1 April 1992.

  The cost of implementing all the recommendations on this basis will be met from within the public expenditure planning totals published in the Autumn Statement. In the case of the health services, the Government recognise that the full costs could not be accommodated within present
  260
  health provision without adversely affecting services to patients. The Government have therefore decided to provide an extra £205 million from the reserve for next year. This payment will bring the increase in the total resources available for the National Health Service in 1990–91 over 1989–90 to nearly £3 billion.

  The pay rates and scales resulting from the decisions will be promulgated as soon as possible for all the groups concerned. Pensions will follow the rates of salary in payment.

  Engagements
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

ENERGY

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many tonnes of(a) sulphur dioxide, (b) nitrogen oxides and (c) particulate carbon are discharged into the atmosphere as a result of electricity generation each year.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1987 a total of 2,830,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 809,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxides were emitted in the United Kingdom as a result of electricity generation. The reference to particulate carbon in the question is taken as meaning black smoke; coal-fired power stations employ a high-temperature combustion process which avoids the emission of black smoke during electricity generation.

  These figures have been taken from the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Figures for 1988 will be available in the next edition of the digest which will be published soon.

  Non-fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies he has commissioned of the effect of a non-fossil fuel levy on electricity prices on(a) price and

  261
  sale prospects of area boards, (b) incentives for larger users to generate their own electricity, (c) fuel prices in the United Kingdom compared to the EEC countries and (d) substitution of gas.

  Mr. Baldry
  The fossil fuel levy is designed to ensure that the costs of the non-fossil fuel obligation are shared out amongst all electricity suppliers. Otherwise, the public electricity suppliers would be put at a competitive disadvantage and proceeds affected. The levy does not add to the total cost of electricity, it identifies a cost that is already there. In general, therefore, the introduction of the levy will not have a significant impact.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent visit he has paid to the atomic energy research establishments at(a) Harwell, (b) Windscale laboratories and (c) Dounreay; what matters were discussed; and whether he plans to make further visits.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Harwell on 20 October 1989. He discussed a variety of matters including the R and D work of the laboratory and the progress being made in meeting the AEA's commercial objectives. He has not yet visited the Windscale laboratories or Dounreay.

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many offshore installations in the United Kingdom continental shelf are classified as not normally manned installations; what criteria are applied to determine whether an installation is so classified; and what requirements are in force for safety and evacuation of workers on such installations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Forty installations have been registered with my Department as not normally manned. There are a number of criteria that are taken into account in determining whether an installation is so classified, including the number of visits necessary to maintain normal operations, the number of persons likely to be on the installation at any one time, the hazards likely to be present and the logistical support provided.

  There is a duty on every employer under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure the safety at work of all his employees, and this would apply whenever people are present on installations which are not normally manned. In addition, there are specific statutory requirements under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 for there to be lifebuoys, lifejackets, suitable and sufficient means of descent to the water, automatic fire and flammable gas detection systems, remote control safety equipment, fire extinguishers and fireman's equipment on every offshore installation. A standby vessel must be in attendance at all times when there are persons present on a not normally manned installation and in addition operating companies have agreed that a helicopter will be available so that in the event of an emergency all persons can be evacuated with the minimum delay.

  Emergency Shutdown Valves
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which pipelines on the United Kingdom continental shelf have subsea emergency shutdown valves installed; which pipelines have been identified as requiring subsea emergency shutdown valves; which companies operate these pipelines; and when he proposes to introduce regulations making such valves mandatory.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Subsea isolation systems are fitted to the following pipelines:

  Murchison 6" Northern Leg gas gathering line

  Esmond to shore 24" gas pipeline

  Claymore to Piper Wye 16" oil pipeline

  Claymore to Tartan 24" oil pipeline

  Claymore to AH 001 14" oil pipeline

  Claymore to shore 30" oil pipeline

  2 x Claymore to Scapa 10" oil pipelines

  2 x Claymore to Scapa 6" test pipelines

  6 x Claymore to Scapa 3" gas lift pipelines

  Brent A 20" Northern Leg gas gathering line

  Fulmar to shore 20" gas pipeline

  Tartan to Piper Wye 18" gas pipeline

  Tartan to AH 001 8" gas pipeline

  Tartan to Claymore 24" oil pipeline

  Tartan to Highlander 12" oil pipeline

  Tartan to Highlander 8" test pipeline

  Tartan to Highlander 8" gas lift pipeline

  Tartan to Petronella 8"oil pipeline

  MCP-01 to Piper Wye 18" oil pipeline.

  Subsea isolation systems have also been fitted to the oil and gas pipeline risers of the following floating production installations:

  Transworld 58

  Deepsea Pioneer

  Northsea Pioneer

  AH 001

  Balmoral 16/21

  Buchan "A".

  After continuing our consultations on requirements for subsea isolation systems I hope to make regulations early in 1991. In the meantime pipeline-operating companies, in discussion with my Department, have identified at least a further 25 pipelines for which they propose to fit subsea isolation systems. Other pipelines are under consideration.

  Fuel Exports and Imports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 9 November 1989,Official Report. columns 767–68, if he will now give the equivalent fuel table figures for 1989 on the same basis.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the note to my reply given on 12 January 1990,Official Report, columns 768–69, which stated that provisional data for the whole of 1989 should be available in mid-February.

  Electricity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will make it his policy to prepare a national emergency plan to provide a rapid response capability within the electricity supply industry subsequent to vesting day to restore power rapidly to storm-affected areas;

  (2) what arrangements he proposes to make to enable electricity distribution linesmen to be transferred on a good will basis to areas 'with badly disrupted power supplies subsequent to vesting day in the electricity supply industry;
  263
  (3) what consultations he has had on the best means of achieving a rapid restoration of power to storm-affected areas subsequent to vesting day in the electricity supply industry;

  (4) what is his most up-to-date evaluation of the speed of response of the electricity supply industry to the storms of (a) Thursday 25 January and (b) October 1987;

  (5) what powers he will have to ensure that emergency repair staff of the electricity distribution boards can be switched to power cut-afflicted regions subsequent to vesting day in the electricity supply industry; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) whether he will carry out a full analysis of the costs and benefits of instituting a rapid response team of electricity linesmen to restore power to power-cut areas subsequent to vesting day in the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  As in October 1987, the boards in the electricity industry that were badly affected by the recent storm set about restoring supplies rapidly and energetically. Other area boards, the Scottish electricity boards, Northern Ireland Electricity, the electricity supply board of the Republic of Ireland and outside contractors provided prompt and substantial assistance.

  I am confident that, after vesting and after flotation, the new companies will continue to give priority to the restoration of supplies to customers and will continue to come to each other's help as occasions require.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Nursery Costs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the average cost of a place in(a) nursery school, (b) nursery class and (c) reception class for four-year-olds.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Local authority returns of expenditure to the Department of the Environment do not separately identify spending on provision for four-year-olds in nursery schools, nursery classes or reception classes. Expenditure on such provision is included within the primary sector. However, for the purpose of the public expenditure White Paper, my Department does make assumptions about the division of spending between under-fives and over-fives in the primary sector, taking account of the latest projections of pupil numbers. The

  Denominational schools opened since 1985

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Barnet

  Jewish

  Independent Jewish Day School

  Croydon

  Church of England

  St. Andrews C.E. Secondary School

  Ealing

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Wiseman R.C. High

  Enfield

  Church of England

  All Saints C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Newriver Christian School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Ignatius College School

  Harrow

  Roman Catholic

  St. Georges R.C. First & Middle

  Redbridge

  Roman Catholic

  S.S. Peter & Paul R.C. Primary

  Richmond upon Thames

  Church of England

  The Queen's C.E. Primary School

  Sutton

  Church of England

  St. Dunstans C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Wilson's School

  264
  unit cost implied by the provisional outturn spending attributed to under-fives in 1989–90 is some £1,350. This includes spending on under-fives in nursery schools, nursery classes, and reception classes in primary schools.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table giving for the financial year 1990–91(a) capital allocations per pupil in county and voluntary controlled schools and (b) capital grant per pupil in grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is not possible to provide figures on a comparable basis. For 1990–91 local education authorities have received annual capital guidelines for education. It is open to authorities to use the resources avaiable to them for capital purposes as they wish and they are free, within the flexibilities of the local government Acts, to spend above the level of their annual capital guideline from capital receipts and other sources. The annual capital guideline is not split between primary and secondary schools whereas all except one of the existing grant-maintained schools are secondary schools. Nor is information yet available about the distribution of pupils between the two sectors in 1990–91.

  Denominational Schools
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list by name for each local education authority, and by faith, the denominational schools that have opened since 1985;

  (2) if he will list by name for each local education authority, and by faith, the denominational schools that have closed since 1985.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The names of the maintained and non-maintained denominational schools that have opened or closed in 1985 and onwards are given in the table. The list includes maintained schools that have been opened or closed following the approval of statutory proposals; in some cases for the purpose of amalgamation.

  The list is not fully up to date, as some replies from local education authorities are still awaited confirming closures in 1989.

  Independent schools are shown in the education authority in which they are situated.
  265

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Waltham Forest

  Roman Catholic

  Holy Family College

  Coventry

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Wiseman R.C. Secondary School

  Dudley

  Church of England

  Netherton C.E. Primary School

  Walsall

  Church of England

  Birchills C.E. Primary

  Wolverhampton

  Church of England

  St. Martins C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  St. Martins Primary

  Knowsley

  Roman Catholic

  Knowsley St. Edmund of Canterbury R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Knowsley St. Thomas Becket R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Knowsley All Saints R.C. Comprehensive

  St. Helens

  Roman Catholic

  St. Augustine of Canterbury R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  De La Salle R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  Carmel R.C. Sixth Form College

  Sefton

  Church of England

  Bishop David Sheppard C.E. Primary School

  Wirral

  Roman Catholic

  St. Benedicts R.C. High School

  Bolton

  Roman Catholic

  Mount St. Josephs R.C. School

  Roman Catholic

  Thornleigh Salesian College

  Bury

  Roman Catholic

  St. Monicas R.C. High School

  Jewish

  Bury & Whitfield Jewish Primary

  Manchester

  Church of England

  St. Johns C.E. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Ancoats St. Annes R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Vincent De Paul R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  Barlow R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Gregorys R.C. High

  Oldham

  Roman Catholic

  St. Augustine of Canterbury R.C. Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  Our Lady R.C. Comprehensive

  Rochdale

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Langley R.C. High

  Salford

  Church of England

  Wardley C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  St. Pauls Peel C.E. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Pope John Paul II R.C. High School

  Roman Catholic

  Our Lady of Mount Carmel R.C. High

  Stockport

  Church of England

  St. Stephen's C.E. Primary

  Trafford

  Roman Catholic

  Christ the King School

  Wigan

  Methodist

  Bedford Hall Methodist Primary

  Bradford

  Church of England

  St. Philip's C.E. First School

  Kirklees

  Church of England

  Almondbury C.E. V.C. Infants

  Leeds

  Roman Catholic

  St. Anthony's R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Augustine R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Christ the King R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Corpus Christi R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Francis R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Holy Family R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Our Lady R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Joseph's R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Nicholas R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Our Lady of Good Council R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Sacred Heart R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Paul's R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Philip's R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Holy Name R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Andrew's R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Brigid's R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Dominic's R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Immaculate Heart of Mary R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Patrick's R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Heenan High School

  Roman Catholic

  Corpus Christi High School

  Roman Catholic

  Mount St. Mary High School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Michael's High School

  266 267

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Roman Catholic

  Notre Dame Sixth Form College

  Wakefield

  Church of England

  St. Thomas C.E. Junior

  Church of England

  St. Thomas C.E. Junior

  Gateshead

  Roman Catholic

  St. Edmund Campion R.C. Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  St. Thomas More R.C. Comprehensive

  North Tyneside

  Roman Catholic

  Wallsend C.E. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Thomas More R.C. Comprehensive School

  Inner London

  Church of England

  Bishop John Robinson School

  Roman Catholic

  Wandsworth, John Paul II

  Roman Catholic

  Lambeth, Bishop Thomas Grant R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Camberwell, Sacred Heart R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Bermondsey, St. Michael's R.C. Secondary

  Church of England

  The Dolphin School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Francis Xavier Sixth Form College

  Roman Catholic

  London Oratory School

  Methodist

  Hornsby House School

  Jewish

  Talmud Torah Chaim Meirim School

  Avon

  Church of England

  Crockerne Pill VC Infant

  Church of England

  All Saints C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  St. Michaels C.E. Primary School

  Berkshire

  Church of England

  The Queen Anne Royal Free C.E. First School

  Church of England

  Eton Porny C.E. First

  Church of England

  Binfield C.E. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Slough St. Ethelberts R.C. Combined

  Roman Catholic

  Slough St. Anthonys Combined

  Roman Catholic

  The Holy Family Combined

  Roman Catholic

  St. Edwards Royal Free (Aided) Middle

  Roman Catholic

  Faith Christian School

  Buckinghamshire

  Roman Catholic

  St. Pauls R.C. Secondary School

  Cambridgeshire

  Church of England

  William Law C.E. Primary School

  Cheshire

  Roman Catholic

  St. Philips Church & Community School

  Roman Catholic

  Winsford St. Josephs R.C. Primary School

  Jewish

  Robert Raikes Tutorial School

  Cleveland

  Church of England

  William Cassidi C.E. (Aided) Stillington

  Church of England

  St. Christophers C.E./R.C. Primary School

  Cornwall

  Church of England

  Tremore Christian School

  Church of England

  Tamar Christian School

  Cumbria

  Roman Catholic

  St. Monica's Preparatory School

  Derbyshire

  Church of England

  Holbrook C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Belper St. Johns C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Calow C.E. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Benedict R.C. V.A. School

  Devon

  Church of England

  Exmouth Littleham C. of E.

  Church of England

  St. Michaels C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Bickleigh Down C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Pinhoe St. Michaels C.E. Combined School

  Church of England

  Chelfliam Senior School

  Church of England

  Blyth School

  Church of England

  Stonelands School of Dance & Drama

  Dorset

  Church of England

  Poole Baden Powell & St. Peters C.E. Middle School

  Church of England

  The Abbey C.E. First

  Roman Catholic

  Muscliffe Epiphany Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Verwood Emmanuel Middle School

  Durham

  Church of England

  Shildon St. Johns C.E. Junior & Infant

  Roman Catholic

  Blessed John Duckett R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Bedes R.C. Primary

  East Sussex

  Jewish

  Torah Academy

  Essex

  Church of England

  Bishop Wilson Springfield C. of E. Primary

  268 269

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Hampshire

  Church of England

  Portsea C.E. First & Middle School

  Church of England

  Basingstoke St. John's C.E. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Winchester St. Peters R.C. Primary School

  Hereford and Worcester

  Church of England

  The River School

  Hertfordshire

  Church of England

  Leverstock Green V.C. Primary

  Church of England

  The John Henry Newman R.C. School

  Church of England

  The Thomas Coram C.E. Middle School

  Humberside

  Church of England

  Alderman Cogan C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Archbishop Thurstan C.E. School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Oswalds/St. Annes R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Richards R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Thomas More R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Marys R.C. College

  Isle of Wight

  Roman Catholic

  Newport C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Maidstone St. Johns C. of E.

  Church of England

  Maidstone St. Johns C. of E.

  Church of England

  The Junior Kings School

  Roman Catholic

  Gillingham St. Marys R.C. Primary School

  Lancashire

  Church of England

  Bacup Holy Trinity Stackstead C.E.

  Church of England

  Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment

  Church of England

  Kingsfold Christian School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Josephs R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Barton Newhouse St. Marys/St. Andrews School

  Roman Catholic

  Preston St. Bernards R.C. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Walton-Le-Dale St. Marys and St. Benedicts R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Preston Our Ladys R.C. High School

  Roman Catholic

  Preston Corpus Christi R.C. High School

  Roman Catholic

  Preston Christ the King R.C. High School

  Roman Catholic

  Our Lady and St. John R.C. High School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Bedes R.C. High School

  Leicestershire

  Church of England

  Ashby C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Townlands C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  St. Marys School

  Lincolnshire

  Church of England

  The Ellison Baxters C.E. Primary School

  North Yorkshire

  Church of England

  Forest of Galtries Anglican/Methodist Shipton

  Church of England

  Askrigg Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  All Saints R.C. School

  Nottinghamshire

  Church of England

  Djanogly City Technology College

  Oxfordshire

  Church of England

  St. Swithuns C.E. Primary Kennington

  Church of England

  Milton C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Bruern Abbey School

  Church of England

  St. Clare's School

  Roman Catholic

  Emmanuel Christian School

  Somerset

  Church of England

  Chilton Cantelo School

  Staffordshire

  Church of England

  Essington St. Johns C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  The Lonsdale Primary School

  Church of England

  St. Johns C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  St. Andrews C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  St. Pauls C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Woodseaves C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Haughton C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  All Saints C.E. Infant School

  Church of England

  St. Lawrence C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  St. Peters C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Manifold C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Waterhouses C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Flash C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Newborough Needwood C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  The Anson C.E. Primary School

  Suffolk

  Church of England

  Potters Gate C of E First and Middle

  Church of England

  The Redlands C.E. First School

  Church of England

  Trinity C.E. School

  Church of England

  St. Margarets School

  Church of England

  Kenry School

  270 271

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Church of England

  Moon Hall School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Josephs R.C. First and Middle

  Roman Catholic

  St. Matthews C.E. First and Middle

  Roman Catholic

  St. Charles R.C. First School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Pauls R.C. Secondary School

  Warwickshire

  Church of England

  New Bilton St. Oswalds C.E. First

  Church of England

  Shustoke C.E. First School

  West Sussex

  Church of England

  Harting St. Mary and St. Paul C.E. Cont. First School

  Church of England

  New Life School

  Wiltshire

  Church of England

  Netheravon All Saints Primary School

  Church of England

  Cheverell Academy

  Denominational schools closed since 1985

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Barnet

  Roman Catholic

  St. Antonys School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Albans Prep School

  Jewish

  Independent Jewish Day School

  Jewish

  Yavneh Prep School

  Bexley

  Roman Catholic

  St. Joseph's Convent

  Bromley

  Church of England

  Bromley St. Marys C.E.

  Roman Catholic

  Beckenham Convent School

  Croydon

  Church of England

  St. Andrews C.E. High School

  Ealing

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Newman R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Wiseman R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Annes Convent School

  Enfield

  Church of England

  Latymer All Saints Junior

  Church of England

  Latymer All Saints Infants

  Roman Catholic

  St. Ignatius College

  Roman Catholic

  St. Ignatius College Lower School

  Harrow

  Roman Catholic

  St. Georges R.C. First

  Roman Catholic

  St. Georges R.C. Middle

  Newham

  Roman Catholic

  St. Mary and St. Edward R.C. Junior and Infant

  Redbridge

  Roman Catholic

  St. Peter and St. Paul R.C. Junior

  Roman Catholic

  St. Peter and St. Paul R.C. Infant

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Church of England

  Queens C.E. Junior

  Church of England

  Queens C.E. Infant School

  Sutton

  Church of England

  Cheam C.E. Junior Boys

  Church of England

  St. Dunstans C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Wilsons School

  Waltham Forest

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Wiseman Senior High School

  Roman Catholic

  Corpus Christi High School

  Birmingham

  Roman Catholic

  St. Stephens R.C. Junior and Infants

  Roman Catholic

  Rosary R.C. School

  Roman Catholic

  Archbishop Masterson R.C. School

  Roman Catholic

  Archbishop Williams R.C. School

  Coventry

  Church of England

  St. Michaels C. of E. Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Wiseman R.C. Secondary School for Boys

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Wiseman R.C. Secondary School for Girls

  Dudley

  Church of England

  Jessons C.E. First

  Church of England

  Netherton C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  St. Marys C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  The Blue Coat School

  Walsall

  Church of England

  Birchills C.E. Infants

  Church of England

  Birchills C.E. Junior

  Roman Catholic

  St. Marys R.C. Willenhall

  Wolverhampton

  Church of England

  Bilston Bradley St. Martins Junior

  272 273

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Knowsley

  Roman Catholic

  Holy Angels R.C. Infant School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Marks R.C. Infants

  Roman Catholic

  Knowsley St. Gregorys R.C. Girls Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  Knowsley St. Kevins R.C. Boys Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  Knowsley St. Augustine of Canterbury R.C. Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  St. Pauls R.C. Comprehensive School

  Roman Catholic

  Knowsley The Gonzaga R.C. Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  Knowsley St. Columbas R.C. Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  Knowsley St. Dominics R.C. Comprehensive

  Liverpool

  Church of England

  Allerton Priory

  Roman Catholic

  St. Hughs R.C. Infants

  Roman Catholic

  St. Teresas R.C. Junior Girls

  Roman Catholic

  Holy Cross and St. Marys R.C. Infants

  Roman Catholic

  Convent of Mercy Preparatory School

  St. Helens

  Church of England

  Marshalls Cross C.E. Infants

  Roman Catholic

  Lowe House R.C. Junior

  Roman catholic

  Lowe House R.C. Infants Department

  Roman Catholic

  Sacred Heart R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Mount Carmel R.C. High School

  Roman Catholic

  Campion R.C. High School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Albans R.C. High School

  Roman Catholic

  West Park R.C. High School

  Roman Catholic

  Notre Dame R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Anse1ms R.C. High School

  Sefton

  Church of England

  Christ Church C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  All Saints C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  St. Simon and St. Jude's C.E. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Monicas R.C. Infant

  Roman Catholic

  Lydiate R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Augustines R.C. High

  Wirral

  Roman Catholic

  Bishop Challoner R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  The Marian R.C. High

  Bolton

  Roman Catholic

  Thornleigh Salesian College

  Roman Catholic

  St. Cuthberts R.C. School

  Roman Catholic

  Mount St. Josephs R.C. School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Augustines R.C. School

  Methodist

  Harwood Methodist Infant

  Bury

  Roman Catholic

  St. Peters R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Josephs R.C. High

  Manchester

  Church of England

  St. Johns C.E. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Annes R.C. Junior Ancoats

  Roman Catholic

  St. Annes R.C. Infants Ancoats

  Roman catholic

  The Hollies R.C. High School for Girls

  Roman Catholic

  St. Marks R.C. High School for Boys

  Roman Catholic

  St. Josephs R.C. High School for Girls

  Roman catholic

  St. Pius R.C. High School for Boys

  Roman Catholic

  St. Gregorys R.C. High Street

  Roman Catholic

  St. Thomas More R.C. High School

  Roman Catholic

  De La Salle College of Education

  Oldham

  Roman Catholic

  St. Albans R.C. Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  Our Ladys R.C. Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  St. Anselms R.C. Comprehensive

  Rochdale

  Roman Catholic

  St. Marys R.C. Infant

  Roman Catholic

  St. Wilfrids R.C. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  Bishop Henshaw Memorial R.C. Upper

  Roman Catholic

  St. Dominic Savio R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Langley R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Josephs R.C. Middle

  Salford

  Church of England

  St. Pauls Peel C.E. Infant

  Church of England

  Stowell Memorial C.E.

  Church of England

  St. Pauls Peel C.E. Junior

  Church of England

  St. Johns Ellesmere School

  Church of England

  All Saints C.E. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Bonifaces R.C. Infant Department of

  Roman Catholic

  St. Josephs R.C. Infant

  Roman Catholic

  Cathedral R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Albert R.C. High

  274 275

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Roman Catholic

  St. Andrews R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Lawrence R.C. High

  Stockport

  Church of England

  Offerton C. of E. Primary

  Church of England

  Parish C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Christ Church C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Norbury C. of E. Primary

  Tameside

  Roman Catholic

  Audenshaw St. Annes R.C. Infants

  Wigan

  Methodist

  Leigh Bedford Methodist Primary

  Methodist

  Leigh Plank Lane Methodist Primary

  Barnsley

  Church of England

  Thurgoland Crane Moor C. of E. Junior and Infants

  Rotherham

  Church of England

  Brampton Ellis C. of E. Secondary

  Sheffield

  Roman Catholic

  St. Vincents R.C. Junior and Infant

  Roman Catholic

  St. Peters R.C.

  Bradford

  Church of England

  St. Philips C.E. First School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Patricks R.C. First School

  Calderdale

  Roman Catholic

  St. Marys R.C. Infants Department of

  Kirklees

  Church of England

  West Slaithwaite C.E. Junior and Infant

  Church of England

  Almondbury C. of E. Infants

  Church of England

  Whitley Lower C. of E. First and Middle

  Roman Catholic

  Huddersfield St. Josephs R.C. Infant

  Leeds

  Roman Catholic

  Beeston St. Anthonys R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Bramley Christ The King R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Harehills St. Augustines R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Hunslet St. Josephs Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Middleton St. Philips R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  New Wortley Holy Family R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Our Ladys R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Corpus Christi R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Our Lady of Good Counsel R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Francis of Assisi R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Nicholas R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Pauls R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Sacred Heart R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Gregorys R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Corpus Christi R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Brigids R.C. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  Cardinal Heenan R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Andrews R.C. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  Mount St. Mary R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Michaels R.C. College

  Roman Catholic

  Notre Dame High School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Gregorys R.C. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  St. Dominics R.C. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  Holy Name R.C. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  St. Kevins R.C. Middle

  Wakefield

  Church of England

  St. Botolphs C.E. Middle (amalgamated with)

  Church of England

  Ossett Holy Trinity C.E. Infant

  Church of England

  Featherstone St. Thomas C.E. Middle

  Gateshead

  Roman Catholic

  Blaydon St. Josephs R.C. Infants (amalgamated with)

  Roman Catholic

  St. John Fisher R.C. Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  St. Edmund Campion Comprehensive

  Roman Catholic

  St. Thomas More R.C. Comprehensive

  North Tyneside

  Church of England

  St. Peters C.E. First

  Church of England

  Wallsend C.E. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  St. Aidans R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Anse1ms High School

  Sunderland

  Roman Catholic

  St. Thomas Aquinas R.C.

  Jewish

  Kol Hatorah School

  Inner London

  Church of England

  Lambeth Holy Trinity District C.E. J.M. & I.

  Church of England

  Westmister St. James The Less C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Battersea St. Marys C.E. J. M. & I.

  276 277

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Church of England

  Wandsworth Sir Walter St. Johns School

  Church of England

  Newriver Christian School

  Roman Catholic

  Hampstead Rosary R.C. Infants

  Roman Catholic

  Wandsworth Clapham College

  Roman Catholic

  St. Veronicas R.C. Secondary

  Roman Catholic

  Hammersmith London Oratory R.C. Opted out

  Roman Catholic

  Battersea Notre Dame High School

  Roman Catholic

  Wandsworth Convent of the Holy Family

  Roman Catholic

  Wandsworth John Griffiths R.C. Secondary

  Inner London

  Roman Catholic

  Bermondsey St. Michaels R.C. Secondary

  Roman Catholic

  Camberwell Sacred Heart R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Lambeth Bishop Thomas Grant R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Josephs Academy Pre-Prep School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Aloysius Junior School

  Roman Catholic

  Montfort House School

  Jewish

  Beis Shammai Grammar School

  Avon

  Church of England

  Weston All Saints C. of E. Junior

  Church of England

  St. Michaels C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Compton Dando C. of E. Primary

  Church of England

  Easton in Gordand Cofe

  Church of England

  Failand C. of E. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Bristol Association of Catholic Youth Clubs

  Roman Catholic

  St. Nicholas R.C. Infants Department of

  Bedfordshire

  Church of England

  Old Warden C. of E. Lower

  Berkshire

  Church of England

  All Saints C.E.

  Church of England

  St. Marks C.E.

  Church of England

  Padworth C.E.

  Church of England

  Littlewick C.E. Infants

  Church of England

  Royal Free C.E. First

  Church of England

  Spital C.E. First

  Church of England

  Eton Porny C.E. Combined

  Church of England

  Royal Free C.E. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  Slough St. Ethelberts R.C. First

  Roman Catholic

  The Holy Family R.C. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  Slough St. Ethelberts R.C. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  The Holy Family R.C. First

  Roman Catholic

  Slough St. Anthonys R.C. First

  Roman Catholic

  Slough St. Anthonys R.C. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  St. Edwards R.C. Middle

  Buckinghamshire

  Church of England

  Stoke Hammond C.E. First School

  Church of England

  Westbury C.E. First

  Church of England

  Hambleden C.E. Combined

  Roman Catholic

  Divine Mercy College

  Cambridgeshire

  Church of England

  Burwell C.E. First

  Church of England

  Coveney C.E.

  Cheshire

  Church of England

  Marbury-with-Quoisley Primary School

  Roman Catholic

  Warrington St. Stephens R.C. Infant Department of

  Roman Catholic

  Winsford St. Josephs R.C. Junior

  Roman Catholic

  Winsford St. Josephs R.C. Infant

  Cleveland

  Church of England

  St. Hildas C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Wynyard Park C.E. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Marys Cathedral R.C. Primary

  Cornwall

  Church of England

  Mabe Primary

  Church of England

  Penryn C.E. Infant

  Church of England

  Bude C. of E. Junior

  Cumbria

  Church of England

  Hutton Marr Primary

  Church of England

  Askham C.E. School

  Church of England

  Garsdale C. of E. Primary

  Church of England

  Underbarrow C. of E.

  Church of England

  Whitehaven Crosthwaite Memorial C. of E. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  St. Gabriels Junior School

  Derbyshire

  Church of England

  Belper St. Johns C. of E. First

  Church of England

  Birchover C.E. Infant

  Church of England

  Calow C.E. Junior

  Church of England

  Hazelwood C. of E. First

  Church of England

  Holbrook C. of E. First

  278 279

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Church of England

  Idridgehay Parochial

  Church of England

  Ticknall Parochial C.E.

  Church of England

  Yeaveley C. of E.

  Church of England

  Ashford C.E.

  Roman Catholic

  Derby St. Thomas More R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Ralph Sherwin R.C.

  Devon

  Church of England

  Exmouth Littleham C. of E. Junior

  Church of England

  Kingsteignton C.E. Infant

  Church of England

  Kingsteignton C. of. E. Cancelled

  Church of England

  Pinhoe St. Michaels C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Bickleigh C.E. Roborough

  Church of England

  Plymouth Charles C.E. Secondary

  Church of England

  Morice School

  Roman Catholic

  Rosary House First School

  Roman Catholic

  Marist Convent School

  Methodist

  Ward House School

  Dorset

  Church of England

  Shaftesbury Enmore Green C.E.

  Church of England

  Poole St. Peters C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Shaftesbury Alcester St. James C.E.

  Durham

  Church of England

  Shildon All Saints C.E.

  Church of England

  Shildon St. Johns C.E.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Thomas Aquinas Infant

  Roman Catholic

  St. Williams R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Low Westwood Sacred Heart R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Tow Law R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Wolsingham R.C.

  East Sussex

  Church of England

  Abundant Life School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Michaels Convent Girls School

  Methodist

  Great Sanders School

  Methodist

  Rotherfield Hall (not a school)

  Essex

  Church of England

  Foulness Island C.E. School

  Church of England

  Chelmsford Springfield C. of E.

  Church of England

  Willingale C. of E.

  Roman Catholic

  Ockendon St. Cedds R.C. School

  Gloucestershire

  Church of England

  Broadwell C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Daglingworth C. of E.

  Church of England

  Sandhurst C. of E.

  Church of England

  Weston-Sub-Edge C. of E.

  Church of England

  Coates C. of E.

  Church of England

  Maisemore C. of E.

  Roman Catholic

  Whitefriars School

  Methodist

  Dowdeswell Court School

  Hampshire

  Church of England

  East Boldre Primary

  Church of England

  Froyle C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Old Alresford Primary

  Church of England

  Upton Grey C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  St. Judes C.E. First School

  Church of England

  Beneficial Societys First

  Church of England

  St. Georges C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Hinton Ampner Endowed Primary

  Church of England

  Sherfield English C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Weyhill C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Basingstoke St. Johns C.E. Junior

  Church of England

  The Kings School

  Church of England

  Faith Christian School

  Roman Catholic

  Winchester St. Peters R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Yateley Hall Prep School

  Hereford and Worcester

  Church of England

  Norton Lenchwick C.E. First

  Church of England

  Tarrington C. of E.

  Church of England

  North Malvern C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Norton Canon C.E.

  Hertfordshire

  Church of England

  Westmill First School

  Church of England

  Hemel Hempstead Leverstock Green C.E.

  Church of England

  Berkhamsted Thomas Bourne C.E.

  Roman Catholic

  Broxboume Cardinal Bourne R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Welwey Garden City Holy Trinity R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Michaels R.C. Boys

  Roman Catholic

  St. Angelas R.C. Girls

  Roman Catholic

  Poles Convent F.C.J.

  280 281

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Roman Catholic

  Rosary Priory High School

  Roman Catholic

  Rosary Priory Preparatory School

  Humberside

  Church of England

  Bishop Burton C.E.

  Church of England

  Archbishop William Temple C.E.

  Church of England

  Sancton

  Church of England

  St. Andrews C.E. Junior High

  Church of England

  Alderman Cogans C.E. Junior High

  Roman Catholic

  Sacred Heart R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Bedes R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Wilfrids R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Oswalds R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Marist College Boys School

  Roman Catholic

  St. John Fisher R.C. Junior High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Mary High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Thomas More R.C. Junior High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Annes R.C. Junior High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Richards R.C. Junior High

  Roman Catholic

  Rise Hall School

  Isle of Wight

  Church of England

  Newport C.E. Primary School

  Kent

  Church of England

  Brasted C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Holy Trinity C.E.

  Church of England

  Lower Hardres C.E.

  Church of England

  Throwley C.E.

  Church of England

  Margate St. Johns C.E. Secondary School for Boys

  Roman Catholic

  Gillingham St. Marys R.C. Junior

  Roman Catholic

  Gillingham St. Marys R.C. Infant

  Roman Catholic

  Foxbush School

  Roman Catholic

  Underwood School of Arts & Education

  Methodist

  Deal Methodist Junior

  Lancashire

  Church of England

  Bacup Tunstead C.E.

  Church of England

  Downham C.E.

  Church of England

  Blackburn Emmanuel C.E.

  Church of England

  Upholland St. Thomas the Martyr C.E. Infant

  Church of England

  Lindenhurst College

  Roman Catholic

  Preston St. Josephs R.C. Junior

  Roman Catholic

  Preston St. Bernards R.C. Junior

  Roman Catholic

  Walton-le-Dale St. Benedicts R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Preston St. Josephs R.C. Infant

  Roman Catholic

  Preston Talbot R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Preston St. Bernards R.C. Infant

  Roman Catholic

  Preston St. Maria Goretti R.C. Infant

  Roman Catholic

  Barton Newsham St. Marys R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Ribchester St. Peter & St. Pauls R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Walton-le-Dale Brownedge R.C. Junior & Infants

  Roman Catholic

  Cottam St. Andrews R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Annes R.C. Junior

  Roman Catholic

  St. Marys R.C. Infants School

  Roman Catholic

  Preston St. John Fisher R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  Preston St. Thomas More R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. John Rigby R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Edmund Arrowsmith R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  Fulwood St. Cuthbert Mayne R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  St. Thomas Aquinas R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  Notre Dame R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  Preston St. Edmund Campion R.C. High

  Roman Catholic

  Preston St. John Southworth R.0 High

  Roman Catholic.

  Upholland College

  Leicestershire

  Church of England

  Ashby de la Zouch C.E. Junior

  Church of England

  Ashby de la Zouch C.E. Infant

  Church of England

  Bardon Hill C.E.

  Church of England

  Earl Shilton C.E. Infant

  Church of England

  Walcote C.E.

  Church of England

  St. Peters C.E. Junior

  Roman Catholic

  St. Alberts Convent School

  Lincolnshire

  Church of England

  Folkingham C. of E.

  Church of England

  Foston C.E.

  Church of England

  Great Hale C.E.

  Church of England

  Wilsford Myers C.E.

  Church of England

  Leverton

  Lincolnshire

  Church of England

  Langworth Boulters C.E.

  282 283

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Church of England

  St. Mary's C. of E.

  Church of England

  Scothern C.E. School

  Church of England

  East Barkwith C.E.

  Church of England

  East Kirkby, Gregory Croft C.E.

  Church of England

  Mumby C.E.

  Church of England

  Exeter C.E. Secondary

  Roman Catholic

  Grantham Blessed Hugh More R.C. Secondary

  Methodist

  Lincoln District Education and Youth Committee

  Norfolk

  Church of England

  Dilham School

  Church of England

  Felthorpe C.E. First

  Church of England

  Holme Hale

  Church of England

  Honing

  Church of England

  Pulham Pennoyers

  Church of England

  Smallburgh C. of E.

  Church of England

  Brancaster Deepdale C. of E.

  Church of England

  Scoulton C. of E.

  Church of England

  Great Ringstead C. of E.

  Church of England

  Old Hunstanton C. of E. First

  Church of England

  Abundant Life Christian School

  Roman Catholic

  St. Edmunds R.C. Mixed Secondary

  North Yorkshire

  Church of England

  Aldborough St. John C.E. School

  Church of England

  Askrigg C. of E.

  Church of England

  Bellerby C.E.

  Church of England

  Constable Burton C.E.

  Church of England

  Flaxton on the Moor C.E.

  Church of England

  Newton Upon Ouse C. of E.

  Church of England

  Shipton Middleton C. of E.

  Church of England

  Silton and Kepwick C.E.

  Church of England

  Folkton C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Ganton C.E.

  Church of England

  Sawley C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Wighill C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Redmire Bolton Cum Redmire C.E.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Margaret Clitherow R.C. Secondary Modern

  Roman Catholic

  St. Georges R.C. Secondary Modern

  Roman Catholic

  The Bar Convent Grammar School

  Methodist

  Tollerton Methodist School

  Northamptonshire

  Church of England

  Aynho C. of E.

  Nottinghamshire

  Church of England

  New Basford C.E.

  Church of England

  St. Saviours C.E.

  Church of England

  Warsop Vale Junior

  Church of England

  Epperstone School

  Church of England

  Upton C. of E.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Marys R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Josephs R.C. Primary

  Roman Catholic

  Arnold R.C. Infants

  Roman Catholic

  St. Bernadettes R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Hughs College

  Oxfordshire

  Church of England

  Ascott under Wychwood C. of E.

  Church of England

  Kennington St. Swithuns Junior

  Church of England

  Milton St. Blaise C.E.

  Church of England

  Stoke Lyne St. Peter C. of E.

  Church of England

  Goring Heath Endowed

  Church of England

  Ipsden C.E. Primary

  Salop

  Church of England

  Acton Burnell C.E

  Church of England

  Chapel Lawn C.E.

  Church of England

  Ightfield C.E.

  Church of England

  Lyneal C.E. Primary

  Staffordshire

  Church of England

  Bradley Endowed C.E. First

  Church of England

  St. Lawrence C.E. First

  Church of England

  Hanbury St. Werburghs C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Harlaston St. Matthews C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Haughton C.E. First

  Church of England

  Christ Church C.E. First

  Church of England

  Newborough All Saints C.E. First

  Church of England

  Quarnford the Flash C.E. First

  Church of England

  Ranton All Saints C.E. First

  Church of England

  Stafford St. John's C.E. First

  Church of England

  Stafford St. Paul's C.E. First

  Church of England

  Weston St. Andrew's C.E. First

  Church of England

  Hixon St. Peter's C.E. First

  284 285

  Local education authority

  Denomination

  School details

  Church of England

  Waterhouses C.E. First

  Church of England

  The Anson C.E. First School

  Church of England

  Hoar Cross The Meynall C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Newcastle-under-Lyme Trinity C.E. High School

  Church of England

  Eccleshall C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Stafford Riverway C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Heron Brook C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Broadacres C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Essington St. John's C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Waterhouses C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Warslow C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Cheddleton St. Edward's C.E. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  Cotton College

  Roman Catholic

  St. Joseph's Convent School

  Suffolk

  Church of England

  Bradfield St. George C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Culford C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Drinkstone C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Hepworth C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Ingham C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Stoke by Clare C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Wattisfield C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Bury St. Edmunds Eastgate C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Flixton C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Wetherden C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Icklingham C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Parham C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Butley C.E. Middle

  Surrey

  Church of England

  Ash Common Heathcote Memorial C.E.

  Church of England

  St. Pauls C.E. First

  Church of England

  Farnham St. Andrews C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  West Horsley St. Marys C.E. First

  Church of England

  Dorking North Holmwood St. Johns C.E. First

  Church of England

  Reigate St. Lukes C.E. Middle

  Church of England

  Cobham St. Andrews C. of E.

  Roman Catholic

  St. Edward the Confessor R.C. Middle

  Roman Catholic

  Reigate Redhill St. Josephs R.C. First

  Roman Catholic

  Walton & Weybridge St. Charles R.C. First

  Roman Catholic

  Sunbury St. Teresas R.C.

  Roman Catholic

  Sunbury Cardinal Godfrey R.C.

  Warwickshire

  Church of England

  Ansley C.E. First

  Church of England

  Whitacre C.E. Junior & Infants

  Church of England

  Shustoke C.E. Junior & Infants

  Church of England

  Stourton and Cherington C.E. Junior and Infants

  Church of England

  Ullenhall C.E. Junior & Infants

  Church of England

  Rugby St. Andrews C.E. First

  West Sussex

  Church of England

  Cocking C. of E.

  Church of England

  Elsted District

  Church of England

  Harting Cofe

  Roman Catholic

  Convent of the Family School

  Roman Catholic

  Villa Maria Servite Convent

  Wiltshire

  Church of England

  Enford C.E. Primary School

  Church of England

  Netheravon with Fittleton C.E. Primary

  Church of England

  Ebbesbourne Wake C. of E. First

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has yet received the report of the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions in 1990–91.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have now received the third report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions. Its main recommendations are:—a new main scale for classroom teachers providing wide-ranging new local discretions, with increases for individual teachers ranging from 6·4 per cent. to 11·8 per cent. and an average increase of 8·3 per cent.;
  —a new system of range pay for heads and deputies with increases ranging from 9·9 per cent. to 11·2 per cent. and an average increase of 10·4 per cent.;
  286
  —a 17 per cent. increase in the value of B, C, D and E incentive allowances and an 8 per cent. increase in the value of A allowances;
  —an extra 14,400 incentive allowances for the 1990–91 academic year;
  —an 8·8 per cent. increase in London allowances from 1 July 1989;
  —a new discretionary inner London supplement of £750 a year.

  The committee has now been in operation for three years.It has produced an outstanding report. Its recommendations address all the very important issues I asked it to consider when setting this year's remit. They should help substantially to ensure the recruitment, retention and motivation of sufficient teachers of the quality we need to meet the demands of delivering our education reforms. They target resources where they are most needed,

  287
  enhance flexibility and local discretion, improve career prospects, reward responsibility and good work, and make the profession more attractive to intending teachers. I propose to accept all the committee's recommendations, but as for groups covered by the review bodies, to stage their introduction over the period up to 1 January 1991.

  I propose to increase all the pay scales by about 7 per cent. and all incentive allowances by about 8 per cent. as from 1 April 1990. I propose to implement from the same date the IAC's proposals for a new inner London pay supplement and backdated increases in London weighting allowances. The extra 14,400 incentive allowances proposed by the IAC would be introduced from 1 September 1990, as the committee has recommended. The committee's recommendations would be implemented in full with effect from 1 January 1991.

  The IAC's report will be generally available next week, when I shall initiate the consultations required by section 3(1) of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 on my detailed proposals for implementing its recommendations.

  Research Councils
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will respond to the advice he has received from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the future structure of the research council system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 January 1990, c. 434]: I wrote yesterday to Sir David Phillips, chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, giving the Government's response to the board's advice about improving co-ordination between the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council.

  The text of my letter is as follows:
  "Dear Sir David
  Future Structure of the Research Council System
  Thank you for your letter of 1 December,which supplemented the advice in your letter of 15 November about the structure of the Research Council System.
  Your further letter asked for guidance on the suggestion that a small working group should be established under ABRC auspices to examine the practicalities of achieving a closer association of the AFRC and NERC, possibly leading to a merger of the AFRC and NERC as recommended by the House of Lords Select Committee. The purpose would be to achieve closer coordination of the research programmes of these Councils, in particular in terrestrial life sciences.
  We have considered this proposal in the light of the decision that ABRC should be reconstituted from 1 April, and have concluded that we would prefer the 'new' ABRC to take forward the question of improving cooperation between all the Councils, within the existing Research Council structure. The need for greater cooperation was a major factor in our decision to reconstitute the Board and give it a new remit, and we would now expect the 'new' Board to give urgent attention to carrying this into effect.

  Scotland

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  28

  (15·3)

  2,757

  (19·3)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,757

  (19·3)

  1980

  31

  (20·0)

  4,474

  (24·0)

  n/a

  n/a

  4,474

  (24·0)

  1981

  28

  (21·0)

  5,756

  (35·1)

  n/a

  n/a

  5,756

  (35·1)

  1982

  28

  (21·0)

  2,258

  (21·4)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,258

  (21·4)

  1983

  49

  (20·8)

  5,135

  (33·0)

  3,432

  (22·5)

  8,567

  (27·8)

  1984

  74

  (22·6)

  8,761

  (32·3)

  1,463

  (7·6)

  10,224

  (22·0)

  1985

  57

  (15·2)

  4,971

  (19·4)

  2,922

  (15·6)

  7,893

  (17·8)

  1986

  36

  (10·6)

  1,881

  (11·6)

  607

  (5·6)

  2,488

  (9·2)

  288
  As with our earlier exchange, I shall be placing copies of our letters before Parliament."

  Copies of this letter and of Sir David Phillips' letter of 1 December are being placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  GATT
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement regarding the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government attach great importance to a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, which is likely to be crucial to the maintenance and strengthening of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We want to see substantial reductions in trade barriers, the strengthening of the GATT system, and its extension to new areas of trade. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently set out the Government's attitude to the Uruguay round in some detail, in a speech at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and I am arranging for copies of this to be placed in the Library of the House. Formal negotiations on behalf of the European Community are of course the responsibility of the European Commission.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation about the Uruguay round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has received a number of representations from the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation concerning the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, most recently relating to the tariffs and non-tariff barriers faced by our footwear exports.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give a breakdown of inward investment in Britain by standard English region and for Scotland and Wales for each year since 1979, showing the amount received in each region in cash terms and as a proportion of the total in each year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The table gives details of the number of inward investment decisions known to the Invest in Britain Bureau for the calendar years 1979 to 1988 and the associated jobs for the United Kingdom by region. Comparable information on the total level of financial investment by inward investors is not available.
  289

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1987

  31

  (10·2)

  3,704

  (18 6)

  2,061

  (12·1)

  5,765

  (15·6)

  1988

  58

  (17·6)

  5,392

  (20·3)

  1,978

  (10·9)

  7,370

  (16·5)

  Wales

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  18

  (9·8)

  854

  (6·0)

  n/a

  n/a

  854

  (6·0)

  1980

  16

  (10·3)

  3,332

  (17·9)

  n/a

  n/a

  3,332

  (17·9)

  1981

  20

  (15·0)

  1,986

  (12·1)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,986

  (12·1)

  1982

  17

  (12·8)

  901

  (8·6)

  n/a

  n/a

  901

  (8·6)

  1983

  31

  (13·1)

  2,116

  (13·6)

  1,913

  (12·5)

  4,029

  (13·1)

  1984

  42

  (12·8)

  3,958

  (14·6)

  5,015

  (26·0)

  8,973

  (19·3)

  1985

  45

  (12·0

  2,416

  (9·4)

  1,350

  (7·2)

  3,766

  (8·5)

  1986

  49

  (14·5)

  2,364

  (14·5)

  2,232

  (20·7)

  4,596

  (17·0)

  1987

  57

  (18·8)

  3,954

  (19 9)

  877

  (5·6)

  4,831

  (13·1)

  1988

  55

  (16·7)

  5,856

  (22·1)

  2,085

  (H·5)

  7,941

  (17·8)

  Northern Ireland

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  18

  (9·8)

  2,794

  (19·5)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,794

  (19·5)

  1980

  20

  (12·9)

  2,760

  (14·8)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,760

  (14·8)

  1981

  15

  (11·3)

  2,429

  (14·8)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,429

  (14·8)

  1982

  6

  (4·5)

  1,893

  (18·0)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,893

  (18·0)

  1983

  11

  (4·7)

  548

  (3·5)

  1,192

  (7·8)

  1,740

  (5·6)

  1984

  27

  (8·2)

  2,256

  (8·3)

  2,876

  (14·9)

  5,132

  (11·1)

  1985

  22

  (5·9)

  771

  (3·0)

  1,424

  (7·6)

  2,195

  (5·0)

  1986

  18

  (5·3)

  693

  (4·3)

  1,722

  (16·0)

  2,415

  (8·9)

  1987

  17

  (5·6)

  946

  (4·8)

  1,341

  (7·9)

  2,287

  (6·2)

  1988

  22

  (6·7)

  2,610

  (9·8)

  916

  (5·1)

  3,526

  (7·9)

  North East

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  21

  (11·5)

  1,466

  (10·2)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,466

  (10·2)

  1980

  19

  (12·3)

  2,923

  (15·7)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,923

  (15 7)

  1981

  14

  (10·5)

  1,021

  (6·2)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,021

  (6·2)

  1982

  15

  (11·3)

  539

  (5·1)

  n/a

  n/a

  539

  (5·1)

  1983

  20

  (8·5)

  1,066

  (6·9)

  720

  (4·7)

  1,786

  (5·8)

  1984

  29

  (8·8)

  4,589

  (16·9)

  230

  (1·2)

  4,819

  (10·4)

  1985

  26

  (6·9)

  1,987

  (7·8)

  1,572

  (8·4)

  3,559

  (8·0)

  1986

  30

  (8·8)

  1,581

  (9·7)

  1,158

  (10·8)

  2,739

  (101)

  1987

  31

  (10 2)

  3,491

  (17·5)

  852

  (5·0)

  4,343

  (11·8)

  1988

  22

  (6·7)

  2,041

  (7·7)

  31

  (0·2)

  2,072

  (4·6)

  North West

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  9

  (4·9)

  379

  (2·6)

  n/a

  n/a

  379

  (2·6)

  1980

  15

  (9·7)

  913

  (4·9)

  n/a

  n/a

  913

  (4·9)

  1981

  12

  (9·0)

  1,177

  (7·2)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,177

  (7·2)

  1982

  14

  (10·5>

  1,291

  (12·3)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,291

  (12·3)

  1983

  22

  (9·3)

  709

  (4·6)

  1,114

  (7·3)

  1,823

  (5·9)

  1984

  40

  (12·2)

  1,135

  (4·2)

  1,911

  (9·9)

  3,046

  (6·6)

  1985

  28

  (7·5>

  2,271

  (8·9)

  1,378

  (7·4)

  3,649

  (8·2)

  1986

  34

  (10·0)

  1,400

  (8·6)

  1,389

  (12·9)

  2,789

  (10·3)

  1987

  22

  (7·3)

  356

  (1·8)

  1,946

  (114)

  2,302

  (6·2)

  1988

  24

  (7·3)

  1,604

  (6·0)

  3,169

  (17·5)

  4,773

  (10·7)

  Yorkshire·Humberside

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  27

  (14·8)

  1,176

  (8·2)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,176

  (8·2)

  1980

  17

  (11·0)

  890

  (4·8)

  n/a

  n/a

  890

  (4·8)

  1981

  6

  (4·5)

  167

  (1·0)

  n/a

  n/a

  167

  (1·0)

  1982

  7

  (5·3)

  104

  (0·9)

  n/a

  n/a

  104

  (1·0)

  1983

  10

  (4·2)

  345

  (2·2)

  502

  (3·3)

  847

  (2·7)

  1984

  7

  (2·1)

  119

  (0·4)

  860

  (4·5)

  979

  (2·1)

  290 291

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1985

  16

  (43)

  2,263

  (8·8)

  2,969

  (15·9)

  5,232

  (11·8)

  1986

  11

  (32)

  158

  (0·9)

  57

  (0·5)

  215

  (0·7)

  1987

  22

  (7·3)

  938

  (4·7)

  961

  (5·7)

  1,899

  (51)

  1988

  14

  4·2)

  1,507

  (5·7)

  250

  (1·4)

  1,757

  (3·9)

  West Midlands

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  11

  (6·0)

  864

  (6·0)

  n/a

  n/a

  864

  (6·0)

  1980

  3

  (1·9)

  1,040

  (5·6)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,040

  (5·6)

  1981

  7

  (5·3)

  425

  (2·6)

  n/a

  n/a

  425

  (2·6)

  1982

  1

  (0·7)

  100

  (0·9)

  n/a

  n/a

  100

  (0·9)

  1983

  13

  (5·5)

  1,201

  (7·7)

  3,179

  (20·8)

  4,380

  (14·2)

  1984

  14

  (4·3)

  1,531

  (5·6)

  5,240

  (27·2)

  6,771

  (14·6)

  1985

  63

  (16·8)

  5,197

  (20·3)

  1,375

  7·4)

  6,572

  (14·8)

  1986

  74

  (21·8)

  4,393

  (27·0)

  1,899

  (17·7)

  6,292

  (23·3)

  1987

  50

  (16·5)

  3,002

  (15·1)

  1,952

  (11·5)

  4,954

  (13·4)

  1988

  66

  (20·0)

  3,656

  (13·8)

  7,824

  (43·2)

  11,480

  (25·7)

  East Midlands

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  15

  (8·2)

  1,174

  (8·2)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,174

  (8·2)

  1980

  5

  (3·2)

  276

  (1·5)

  n/a

  n/a

  276

  (1·5)

  1981

  8

  (6·0)

  290

  (1·8)

  n/a

  n/a

  290

  (1·8)

  1982

  13

  (9·8)

  848

  (8·1)

  n/a

  n/a

  848

  (8·1)

  1983

  12

  (5·1)

  939

  (6·0)

  80

  (0·5)

  1,019

  (3·3)

  1984

  11

  (3·4)

  658

  (2·4)

  303

  (1·6)

  961

  (2·1)

  1985

  19

  (5·1)

  778

  (3·0)

  0

  778

  (1·8)

  1986

  IS

  (4·4)

  557

  (3·4)

  20

  (01)

  577

  (2·1)

  1987

  11

  (3·6)

  456

  (2·3)

  398

  (2·3)

  854

  (2·3)

  1988

  16

  (4·8)

  836

  (3·1)

  880

  (4·9)

  1,716

  (38)

  South West

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  23

  (12·6)

  908

  (6·3)

  n/a

  n/a

  908

  (6·3)

  1980

  23

  (14·8)

  1,046

  (5·6)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,046

  (5·6)

  1981

  15

  (11·3

  967

  (5·9)

  n/a

  n/a

  967

  (5·9)

  1982

  25

  (18·8)

  1,300

  (12·4)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,300

  (12·4)

  1983

  59

  (25·0

  3,036

  (19·5)

  2,667

  (17·5)

  5,703

  (18·5)

  1984

  70

  (21·3)

  2,731

  (10·1)

  810

  (4·2)

  3,541

  (7·6)

  1985

  84

  (22·4)

  3,649

  (14·3)

  5,712

  (30·5)

  9,361

  (21·1)

  1986

  60

  (17·7)

  2,118

  (13·0)

  1,148

  (10·7)

  3,266

  (12·1)

  1987

  50

  (16·5)

  2,503

  (12 6)

  599

  (3·5)

  3,102

  (8·4)

  1988

  45

  (13·6)

  2,240

  (8·4)

  983

  (5·4)

  3,223

  (7·2)

  South West

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  13

  (7·1)

  1,938

  (13·5)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,938

  (13·5)

  1980

  6

  (3·9)

  1,008

  (54)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,008

  (5·4)

  1981

  8

  (6·0)

  2,199

  (13·4)

  n/a

  n/a

  2,199

  (13·4)

  1982

  7

  (5·3)

  1,295

  (12·3)

  n/a

  n/a

  1,295

  (12·3)

  1983

  9

  (3·8)

  451

  (2·9)

  458

  (3·0)

  909

  (2·9)

  1984

  14

  (4·3)

  1,364

  (5·0)

  586

  (3·0)

  1,950

  (4·2)

  1985

  15

  (4·0)

  1,281

  (5·0)

  19

  (0·1)

  1,300

  (2·9)

  1986

  12

  (3·5)

  1,129

  (6·9)

  528

  (4·9)

  1,657

  (6·1)

  1987

  11

  (3·6)

  564

  (2·8)

  328

  (1·9)

  892

  (2·4)

  1988

  5

  (1·5)

  479

  (1·8)

  0

  (0)

  479

  (1·1)

  United Kingdom not specified

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  292 293

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  1

  (0·3)

  —

  —

  5,700

  (33·5)

  5,700

  (15 4)

  1988

  3

  (0·9)

  325

  (1·2)

  0

  (0)

  325

  (0·7)

  Total United Kingdom

  P

  NJ

  SJ

  Total Jobs (NJ and SJ)

  1979

  183

  14,310

  n/a

  14,310

  1980

  155

  18,662

  n/a

  18,662

  1981

  133

  16,417

  n/a

  16,417

  1982

  133

  10,529

  n/a

  10,529

  1983

  236

  15,546

  15,257

  30,803

  1984

  328

  27,102

  19,294

  46,396

  198S

  375

  25,584

  18,721

  44,305

  1986

  339

  16,274

  10,760

  27,034

  1987

  303

  19,914

  17,015

  36,929

  1988

  330

  26,546

  18,116

  44,662

  n/a = Not available·

  P = Number of projects—Figures in brackets apply to percentage of total for each region·

  NJ = New Jobs—These figures refer to decisions known to the IBB, and are provided by the companies themselves·

  SJ = Safeguarded Jobs—The jobs are those associated with the projects over the long term·

  Regional Assistance
  Mr.Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report the amount of regional preferential assistance paid to each standard

  Government expenditure on regional preferential assistance for industry1

  Financial year

  Form of assistance—Region

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1· Regional Development Grant

  Northern

  135·0

  122·4

  117·5

  143·9

  127·2

  101·3

  89·0

  67·3

  102·2

  61·7

  81·6

  North West

  64·3

  58·7

  105·7

  143·4

  97·3

  83·0

  80·0

  62·1

  101·3

  45·7

  46·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  30·2

  21·5

  38·7

  47·1

  36·4

  23·5

  26·8

  24·2

  27·1

  17·8

  19 3

  South West

  6·0

  5·0

  8·5

  10·3

  110

  7·8

  9·5

  8·6

  15 3

  7·0

  6·6

  East Midlands

  2·3

  2·4

  3·2

  7·2

  8·8

  8·2

  3·8

  4·4

  8·4

  7·1

  7·9

  West Midlands

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England2

  238·1

  210·0

  273·7

  351·9

  280·7

  223·8

  209·0

  166·6

  254·4

  139·3

  162·2

  Scotland

  107·3

  70·2

  113·3

  142·7

  287·3

  143·0

  109·2

  107·5

  170·2

  78 0

  76·6

  Wales

  71·5

  50·7

  103·5

  122·2

  121·5

  72·1

  92·7

  84·4

  88·8

  53·4

  58·6

  Great Britain2

  416·9

  330·9

  490·5

  516·8

  689·6

  438·9

  410·8

  358·5

  513·1

  270·6

  297·4

  2· Selective Financial Assistance

  Northern

  10·6

  115

  19·2

  22·6

  21·1

  15·4

  15·3

  16·2

  17·3

  24·9

  35·1

  North West

  40·2

  23·3

  22·5

  14·7

  18·3

  13·6

  13·7

  12·7

  18·3

  19·6

  20·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5·2

  6·8

  6·6

  7·1

  10 6

  8·8

  9·7

  8·3

  10·1

  14·1

  21·0

  South West

  2·4

  2·7

  2·8

  1·7

  2·7

  2·0

  2·2

  2·5

  5·2

  4·3

  4·5

  East Midlands

  0·7

  0·9

  0·6

  1·0

  4·1

  8·7

  6·4

  3·9

  2·2

  2·3

  1·0

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·5

  9·8

  18 3

  24·6

  England2

  59·2

  45·2

  51·7

  471

  56·8

  48·7

  47·3

  49·1

  62·9

  83·4

  106·7

  Scotland

  14·9

  18·7

  23·5

  19·6

  201

  24·7

  31 7

  48·1

  35·4

  38·3

  38·0

  Wales

  30·4

  18·8

  118

  10·2

  14·5

  15·9

  19·4

  22·5

  27·5

  28·3

  36· 1

  Great Britain2

  104·5

  82·6

  870

  77 0

  91·5

  89·3

  98·4

  119·7

  125·8

  150·1

  180· 8

  3· Regional Enterprise Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  North West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  South West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·1

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·9

  294
  region of England, Scotland and Wales in 1988–89, identifying separately the main forms of assistance; and if he will publish equivalent data for each year since 1978–79.

  Mr.Douglas Hogg: The information requested is as follows:

  295

  Financial year

  Form of assistance—Region

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  Great

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·4

  4· Expenditure by English Estates on land and factories

  Northern

  13·2

  13·9

  14·9

  10·1

  10·2

  12·3

  18·3

  11·1

  16·9

  22·6

  16·6

  North West

  39·6

  37·4

  9·3

  M5·7

  38·2

  36·5

  10·2

  11·1

  9·0

  13·5

  14 6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2·0

  3·8

  7·4

  7·4

  5·9

  3·3

  6·0

  2·9

  4 1

  6·7

  9·3

  South West

  1·2

  2·6

  1·3

  2·8

  2·7

  21

  2·5

  0·9

  2·2

  3·4

  3·4

  East Midlands

  0·4

  0·8

  0·9

  0·4

  0·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  0·1

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·9

  0·2

  0·5

  10

  England2

  26·5

  28·6

  33·9

  36·4

  27·7

  24·2

  370

  26·9

  32·4

  46·7

  44·9

  Expenditure by Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies on land and factories

  Scotland

  27·8

  37·8

  47·3

  58·4

  46·4

  43·6

  23·3

  23·8

  20·2

  20·5

  18·2

  Wales

  30·2

  43·4

  600

  65·9

  46·2

  28·4

  30·1

  25·4

  27·6

  44·2

  45·8

  5· Highlands and Islands Development Board Scotland

  6·1

  8·5

  11·4

  11·8

  15·6

  17·3

  22·9

  17·6

  16·6

  16·4

  18·1

  6· Development Board for Rural Wales

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·1

  5·3

  6·1

  6·8

  6·5

  7·4

  1 All figures are gross and include payments to nationalised industries·

  2 The England and Great Britain totals for individual forms of assistance may not always equal inclusion of items which cannot be allocated to regions, and because of rounding· the sum of the component parts due to the

  1 Includes expenditure in Cumbria, otherwise shown within the totals for the Northern Region·

  The items included in the expenditure are: regional development grants, regional selective assistance and regional enterprise grants; expenditure on land and factories by the English Industrial Estates Corporation and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies; and expenditure on land and factories and grants by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Red Telephone Boxes
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce a statutory duty on British Telecom to notify and consult the local authority when it intends to replace red telephone boxes in conservation areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Such a duty already exists under the terms of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (SI No. 1813).

  NESL (Danish Order)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement as to the financial outcome of the Danish order for ferry boats which was placed with North East Shipbuilders Ltd.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The financial outturn on this contract at North East Shipbuilders Ltd remains subject to final audit and to the terms of sale of the last three ferries remaining from the order. Subject to that, the net losses on the contract are estimated to be of the order of £40 million. This includes the cost of cancellation of nine of the ships from the original order.

  Wine
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to introduce legislation to prescribe the quantities in which wine by the glass may be sold; and if he will make a statement.
  296
  Mr. Forth
  I am pleased to announce that the Government propose to make an order prescribing the measures in which wine may be sold by the glass in licensed premises. The trade's voluntary code of practice on prescribed measures for wine has made a useful contribution in this field. Nevertheless, I believe that the increase in the amount of wine sold by the glass in licensed premises has now tipped the balance in favour of prescribing measures for wine.

  We shall shortly be consulting interested parties about the proposal, in particular as to the volumes to be prescribed and the transitional period. We shall also be notifying the proposal to the EC Commission as we are required to do by directive 83/189. We would hope to be able to complete these steps in time to lay the order in Parliament before the summer under the affirmative resolution procedure. This order will have similar effect to that intended under Lord Mason's Weights and Measures (Sale of Wine) Bill which he has indicated he proposes to withdraw today.

  Single Market
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a list of the inquiries which have been authorised by the EEC Commission on the impact of the single market and indicate which of the reports of such inquiries have been published.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: The Commission frequently undertakes inquiries in varying
  297
  degrees of detail on a wide range of European issues. On the single market, the most detailed of these is the Cecchini report, published in 1988, which forecasts the impact of the single market on different industrial sectors. No complete list of Commission inquiries exists.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East of 24 January, when his Department will complete its assessment of the EEC Commission-Louvain university study on the impact of the single market on regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: My Department is still studying this report, received last week, and will complete its assessment as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice and assistance was sought from his Department by the university of Louvain in connection with its report on the impact of the single market on regions.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: None.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what manpower in his Department is devoted to providing advice and briefing to industry, commerce and the general public on the 1992 proposals; and what expenditure is devoted to this area of policy.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: My Department's "Europe Open for Business" campaign, which is dedicated to providing factual information to business on single market proposals, is run by a unit of 13 staff, supported as required by officials elsewhere in the Department, including regional offices. Expenditure on the campaign since its launch in March 1988 has been £4·7 million, plus £8·9 million on advertising.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the 1992 proposals on Strathclyde and south Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: The impact of the single market on regions will depend on how successfully individual firms respond. It is therefore not possible to produce reliable assessments of the impact on particular regions as a whole. The single market will provide opportunities and challenges to firms in all parts of the United Kingdom, but the impact of 1992 is only one factor amongst many which will affect economic progress in particular regions.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EEC Commission/Louvain university report on the impact of the single market on regions will be ready for publication; and if he will make copies available through the Vote Office.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: The Commission has not yet decided when or if it will make the report prepared by Louvain university available for publication. I have today placed a copy of the draft report, made available to us by the Commission, in the Library of the House. It is available only in French at present.

  RETI
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the formation and financing of the RETI organisation; and whether Her Majesty's Government were consulted on its formation.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: We understand RETI to be one of many umbrella organisations concerned with lobbying on European issues. It does not receive Government funding. Her Majesty's Government would not expect to be consulted on the formation of such bodies, and were not consulted in this case.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list by location where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  No nursery facilities are available to staff in my Department but they have access to the Westminster holiday playscheme which is financed by both parental and departmental contribution.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Probation Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to privatise parts of the probation service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government intend to publish shortly a Green Paper setting out a number of options for the organisation and management of probation service work. This will include an examination of the contribution that the voluntary and private sectors might make to the service's work. No changes will be made without full consultation. There are no plans to privatise the service.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to correspondence from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen, dated 5 December 1989, regarding Sean Agatha, deceased.

  Mr. Mellor
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 30 January.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member . for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 30 December 1989 referring to Mr. J. R. Green.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write shortly to my hon. Friend.

  Prisoners (Suicide)
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an investigation into the suicide of inmates in prison.
  299
  Mr. Mellor
  We continue to be deeply concerned about the increased incidence of suicide in prison.

  A number of initiatives have been taken in recent years to improve the prison service's suicide prevention strategy, including improved screening arrangements, better training and guidance for staff, establishing suicide prevention management groups and encouraging the involvement of the Samaritans. We also intend to examine whether closed circuit television may be a useful aid in some circumstances.

  In the longer term we shall have the benefit of research which has been commissioned from the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology which will focus primarily on incidents of attempted suicide and self-injury in prison and their relationship with completed suicide.

  All of this work is valuable and will continue. But, in a shorter time scale, my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that it would be helpful to ask Her Majesty's chief inspector of prions, Judge Stephen Tumim, to undertake a review, under section 5A of the Prison Act 1952, as amended, of our present policies and procedures in the light of information gained from his regular inspections of prison establishments. He will also look at the particular problems presented in this context by mentally disturbed inmates.

  Judge Tumim's terms of reference will be:

  To review the effectiveness of the current policy and procedures for the prevention of suicide and self-harm in prison service establishments in England and Wales, with particular reference to the risks posed by mentally disturbed prisoners; and to make recommendations.

  Judge Tumim will begin the review as soon as his inspection programme permits and he expects to be able to report to my right hon. and learned Friend in the autumn.

  Recidivism
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the last available year what are the figures for those sentenced to a custodial sentence serving a second or subsequent sentence.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not recorded centrally. The readily available statistics relate to all previous convictions and are published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (tables 3.5, 4.2 and 5.2 of the latest issue, for 1988 (Cmnd. 825)), copies of which are in the Library.

  Drugs
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new(a) cocaine and (b) heroin addicts were reported to the Home Office in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information for the five years to 1988 is published in table 2 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue No. 1389, "Statistics of Drug Addicts Notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1988", a copy of which is in the Library. Provisional information for 1989 indicates that in comparison with 1988 new notifications for cocaine increased by 13 per cent.—from 462—and for heroin by 5 per cent.—from 4,630.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the yearly totals of money confiscated since the passing of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
  300
  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the amounts ordered to be confiscated in 1987 and 1988 is given in table 7.25 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1988", a copy of which is in the Library. The current estimate by the national drugs intelligence unit of the cumulative total of confiscation orders made since the Drug Trafficking Offences Act came into force in January 1987, is in excess of £16 million.

  Passports
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it takes on average to process an application form for a new passport; and what are the reasons why a passport is not issued immediately the application form is presented to the Passport Office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The processing of a passport application involves a number of stages, including examination of the application and accompanying documents, accounting for the fee, and preparing and issuing the passport. The precise time taken at each stage varies according to the type of application and other factors, and details are not recorded. Passports cannot normally be issued immediately because of the number and variety of the applications received, but priority is given to urgent cases.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will simplify the application forms for passports; and if he will appoint a qualified work study engineer to analyse the relevance of the current questions asked on the application form.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Passport application forms were considerably revised and simplified in 1988 in connection with computerisation of the passport service, in the light of advice from forms design experts and the results of user trials. The design and content of the forms are kept under constant review for ease of completion and to ensure that the information requested is kept to a necessary minimum.

  Litter
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average fine for dropping litter in 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1988 the average fine imposed in England and Wales under the Litter Act 1983 was £40.

  Outside Experts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to his Department's policy on the employment by the police of outside experts, including scientists, able to assist in the investigation and detection of crime.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The use of outside experts to assist in the investigation and detection of crime is a matter for the operational judgment of chief constables.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has any special procedures to deal with cases which are urgent;
  301
  (2)if he will take steps to ensure that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board gives greater publicity to the possibility of interim payments;

  (3) if he will take steps to ensure that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board gives a guarantee that an interim payment will be made within three months on application where the case is obviously urgent or there are circumstances of special hardship.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 31 January 1990]: The board deals with each application on its own merits. Priority is given to cases of severe injury and cases of claims from the bereaved and the elderly.

  The criminal injuries compensation scheme, which the board is responsible for administering, enables the board to make interim payments as soon as an applicant's eligibility for compensation has been established. This may take longer than three months. A copy of the scheme is made available to every applicant. Interim payments are made at the board's discretion and are normally called for where the information to assess a final award is not available, for example where only a provisional medical assessment can be given.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have been employed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the past five years; what is the current number; and what is the estimated shortage.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 31 January 1990]: On 29 January 1990, the board was at its full complement of 330 staff. We understand that it is preparing a detailed request for 50 more staff, which we expect to receive shortly. The other information requested is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Average number of staff in post

  1985

  189

  1986

  204

  1987

  215

  1988

  267

  1989

  312

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the backlog of cases facing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 31 January 1990]: On 31 December 1989, 96,177 applications were awaiting resolution by the board.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated number of months it takes before an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board receives a final payment.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 31 January 1990]: Information on this point is not available. The percentage of cases resolved by the board within certain periods of registration is shown in paragraph 6 of its latest annual report (Cm 900), copies of which are in the Library.

  The figures for 1988–89 are:

  Per cent.

  Up to three months

  1·0

  Three to six months

  2·1

  Six to nine months

  4·8

  302

  Per cent.

  Nine to 12 months

  19·0

  Over 12 months

  73·1

  Telephone Equipment
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the value to crime prevention generally of the use of telephone equipment which displays the caller's number on the recipient's phone.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 31 January 1990]; None. We are aware, however, of newspaper reports claiming success for equipment of this kind operated by Bell Telephone Incorporated of New Jersey, United States. We also understand that research of this system is to be published in the near future in the United States and we shall study it with interest.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the effect on the number of obscene phone calls made in America of the introduction of telephone equipment which identified the caller's number; and whether there are any implications for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 31 January 1990]: We understand that a report will be published shortly by the school of criminal justice at the State University of New Jersey assessing the effect of introduction of telephone equipment which identifies the caller's number. We shall study this report to see whether introduction of similar equipment here would be beneficial. We are also considering a proposal from the Hull Safer Cities project for an assessment of the preventive effect of a call-tracing system to be operated by Kingston Communications in collaboration with the universities of Hull arid Manchester.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has anything to add to his answers of Thursday 25 January in the light of his answers of 5 July 1989 and 14 December 1989, about West Midlands police officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: I regret that the answer given on 25 January was based on incorrect information. I now understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands that one of the officers involved in interviewing those convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, Detective Superintendent Kelly, was subsequently reprimanded for matters unconnected with his normal police duties.

  In providing the answer of 25 January I did not refer to Inspector Matthews because he was not dismissed but, as I informed the hon. Member on 14 December, at column 789, was required to resign.

  Homosexuals
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will bring forward legislation to protect lesbians and gay men from discrimination in employment, housing and the provision of other public and private services;
  303
  (2) what action the Government are taking to monitor discrimination against lesbians and gay men;

  (3) what extra-legal steps the Government are taking to ameliorate discrimination against lesbians and gay men;

  (4) what proposals he has to bring British law into line with best practice in other countries of the European Community with respect to the protection of male and female homosexuals;

  (5) what research he has commissioned into discrimination against homosexuals;

  (6) whether he has any plans to bring forward legislation to remedy discrimination against lesbians and gay men within the legal system;

  (7) whether the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to outlaw incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation along the lines of the legislation being introduced by the Irish Government.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: We have no plans to change the criminal law insofar as it affects homosexual relations or to introduce legislation to

  Males aged 21 and over sentenced to immediate custody for selected sexual offences with other males aged between 16 and 21 by sentence length. 1988

  England and Wales

  Length of sentence

  4 months and under

  over 4 months up to 6 months

  over 6 months up to 1 year

  over 1 year up to 18 months

  over 18 months up to 2 years

  over 2 years up to 3 years

  over 3 years up to 4 years

  over 4 years

  Buggery

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Attempted buggery

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Indecency between males

  1

  2

  3

  3

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the local authorities that have a statutory obligation to undertake peacetime emergency planning of major industrial sites;

  (2) if he will list the major industrial sites by location where local authorities have a statutory obligation to undertake peacetime emergency planning.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not collected centrally in this form and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nicaragua
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the ambassador of the United States of America regarding the forthcoming elections in Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  None. We are continuing to monitor the election closely and we await the report of our official observer, Dr. David Browning. Like others, including ONUVEN and the OAS observers, we have been concerned by reports of harassment of the opposition, of misuse of state resources by the Sandinista Front and of continuing inequality of access to the media and to funding. In particular, there was a long delay in releasing 304
  prohibit differences in treatment on the grounds of homosexuality. I shall write to the hon. Member about the other matters he has raised.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the years 1988 and 1989, how many men were given custodial sentences in the United Kingdom for consenting homosexual acts with males between the ages of 16 and 21 years; and what were the durations of those sentences in each individual case.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: Information for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

  In England and Wales in 1988, 10 males of, or over, 21 were sentenced to immediate imprisonment for buggery or attempted buggery of a male of, or over, 16 but under 21, with his consent. Thirteen males of, or over, the age of 21 were sentenced to immediate imprisonment for an act of gross indecency with a male under the age of 21. The durations of the sentences imposed are given in the table.

  Similar information is not readily available for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  the $1·5 million which the National Endowment for Democracy paid into the Central bank for UNO's use in December.

  India
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will pay an official visit to the Indian sub-continent.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs looks forward to visiting the Indian sub-continent but has no specific plans to do so at present.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to amend the proposals for allowing the number of people from Hong Kong into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  No.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials there are in the present Hong Kong administration at the levels which would be excepted from holding office under the terms of article 74 of the joint declaration.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 31 January 1990]: Exclusion from office after 1997 of specific individuals under section IV of annex I to the joint declaration would depend on whether those individuals were considered

  305
  Chinese nationals or foreign nationals under the terms of the Chinese nationality law. This is a matter for the Chinese Government.

  Spain
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agenda for his proposed meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Ordonez, on 26 February.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be meeting the Spanish Foreign Minister in Madrid on 26 February as part of the process of talks on Gibraltar foreseen in the Brussels communique of 27 November 1984. In addition, my right hon. Friend hopes to discuss other matters of mutual interest.

  Know-how Funds
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the enlargement and extension of the know-how funds for central and eastern Europe.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced on 22 January that we will establish a single know-how fund for eastern Europe. This will include our existing commitments to Poland and Hungary, but we shall also make available a substantial sum of money to finance help to other eastern European countries once they are firmly committed to reform. Help, as with that we are giving Poland and Hungary, will take the form of advice, expertise and training in the skills needed to manage democratic and free market systems. We do not propose at this stage to put a figure on the size of the overall fund. Money will become available as we identify projects in the different reforming countries. This will give us the flexibility to respond to the different needs of the different countries as they arise.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to eastern Europe.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited east Berlin and the GDR from 22–24 January. He had meetings with the Prime Minister, the Foreign and External Economy Ministers, and called on the acting Head of State. He urged them to ensure that the forthcoming elections in the GDR are truly free and democratic. He also met leading opposition and Church representatives. He put forward a package of measures designed to help the people of the GDR.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the help offered by Her Majesty's Government to countries of eastern Europe in respect of democratic voting systems and parliamentary democracy.

  Mr. Maude
  We are actively considering ways in which we can help the countries of eastern Europe in this field. Groups of Hungarian and Polish politicians have already 306
  participated in successful seminars on the United Kingdom parliamentary system organised by the Great Britain/East Europe Centre. Budding politicians from Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia and the GDR will attend similar seminars in the coming months to look at our political and parliamentary system in order to help them organise their parties and electoral campaigns.

  In addition, the IPU is sending fact-finding missions to these four countries to determine how the IPU could be of assistance in the parliamentary field.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of the impact of the new political situation in eastern Europe on the conduct of United Kingdom foreign policy.

  Mr. Maude
  We warmly welcome the recent historic changes in eastern Europe and we shall continue to support the political and economic reforms which are now occuring. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was glad to announce on 22 January that our know-how funds for Poland and Hungary will now be expanded to include the remaining countries of the region, as they move decisively toward democracy and the adoption of market-based economic systems.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any representations have been made to the Government of the United States of America concerning their policies in E1 Salvador.

  Mr. Maude
  We have regular discussions with the Government of the United States on a wide variety of topics including El Salvador.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on which countries have entered reservations to the CITES ban on world ivory trade.

  Mr. Maude
  Seven countries have entered reservations against the CITES appendix I listing of the African elephant. They are Botswana, China, Malawi, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom on behalf of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much elephant ivory has been exported from Hong Kong since he announced the six-month exemption.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Globe 90 Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will be represented at the Globe 90 conference on economic development and environmental protection, to be held in Vancouver between 19 and 23 March.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes; and the Department of the Environment will also be represented at the conference.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in ranked order, expressed in terms of expenditure in £sterling per head of population, the amount allocated to direct overseas aid in(a) the European Community countries and (b) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for each of the last three years for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is given in the table. Figures are available only for those countries which are members of the development assistance committee of the OECD.

  Net Official Development Assistance (oda) per capita for 1986–88 from EEC and DAC countries in ranked order

  £ actual

  Net oda/per capita

  1986

  EEC Countries

  Denmark

  92·56

  Netherlands

  81·44

  France

  62·85

  Germany

  42·79

  Belgium

  37·83

  Italy

  28·65

  United Kingdom

  20·88

  Ireland

  11·94

  DAC Countries

  Norway

  130·54

  Denmark

  92·56

  Sweden

  88·81

  Netherlands

  81·44

  France

  62·85

  Canada

  45·02

  Switzerland

  43·79

  Finland

  43·41

  Germany

  42·79

  Belgium

  37·83

  Australia

  3202

  Japan

  31·63

  Italy

  28·65

  United States of America

  2700

  United Kingdom

  20·88

  Austria

  17·85

  New Zealand

  15·60

  Ireland

  11·94

  1987

  EEC Countries

  Denmark

  102·18

  Netherlands

  87·09

  France

  71·58

  Germany

  43·86

  Belgium

  42·48

  Italy

  27·83

  United Kingdom

  20·38

  Ireland

  8·79

  DAC Countries

  Norway

  129·80

  Denmark

  102·18

  Sweden

  99·90

  Netherlands

  8709

  France

  71·58

  Finland

  53·57

  Switzerland

  50·43

  Canada

  44·84

  Germany

  43·86

  Belgium

  42·48

  Japan

  36·69

  Italy

  27·83

  Australia

  23·53

  United States of America

  22·38

  308

  Net oda/per capita

  United Kingdom

  20·38

  Austria

  16·19

  New Zealand

  16·04

  Ireland

  8·79

  1988

  EEC Countries

  Denmark

  100·70

  Netherlands

  84·83

  France

  68·98

  Germany

  43·27

  Belgium

  33·91

  Italy

  31·11

  United Kingdom

  26·01

  Ireland

  9·04

  DAC Countries

  Norway

  131·32

  Sweden

  101·73

  Denmark

  100·70

  Netherlands

  84·83

  Finland

  6901

  France

  68·98

  Switzerland

  52·02

  Canada

  50·67

  Germany

  43·27

  Japan

  41·82

  Australia

  37·37

  Belgium

  33·91

  Italy

  31·11

  United Kingdom

  26·01

  United States of America

  23·11

  Austria

  22·32

  New Zealand

  17·72

  Ireland

  9·04

  Source: DAC Chairman's Report 1989.

  Jammu and Kashmir
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on restrictions placed on British journalists reporting on affairs in Jammu and Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  We understand the Indian Government have advised foreign journalists to leave Jammu and Kashmir for their own safety. We believe firmly in the freedom of the press, but in the last resort it is up to the local authorities to decide on whether to allow the continued presence of foreign nationals in an area of tension.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom continues to support the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir problem by the United Nations proposal for a plebiscite; what representations he is making to both the Government of India and the United Nations to uphold this proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Britain voted in favour of the various United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. Much has happened since, including the 1972 Simla agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. We believe the status of Kashmir can be settled only by agreement between the two sides.

  Council of Ministers (Business)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is as follows:

  Forecast of Council of Ministers' business for February 1990

  Council meetings

  1. The following meetings are planned:

  5 February— Foreign Affairs Council.

  12 February— Economic and Finance Council.

  12–13 February— Agriculture Council

  22 February— Internal Market Council.

  26 February— Research Council.

  2. The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  A. Foreign Affairs Council

  Trade relations with United States: progress report by Commission

  Cars

  Relations with East/Central Europe

  CSCE: preparation of Bonn Conference

  European Training Foundation

  Youth Exchange Schemes for Eastern Europe

  Mediterranean Countries: Policy Debate

  Turkey

  (Poss) Lome IV Transitional Measures

  EMU (Procedure)

  B. Economic and Finance Council

  EC Loan to Hungary (10788/89)

  Financial Regulation: Conciliation with European Parliament

  EMU Stage l: Presidency Paper on Revised Procedures

  C. Agriculture Council

  Price Fixing (4090/90)

  Bovine Semen (9729/89)

  Brucellosis in Sheep and Goats (9710/89)

  (Poss) Proof of Export (Annex II Documents)

  (Poss) Monitoring of Export Refunds (7548/89)

  (Poss) BST (8975/89)

  (Poss) African Swine Fever in Sardinia (9727/89)

  (Poss) Food Aid for Poland/Romania

  D. Internal Market Council

  Rights of Residence (7706/89)

  Public Purchasing:

  Excluded Sectors

  Compliance in the Excluded Sectors Presentation

  Pharmeceutical Proposals:

  Wholesalers;

  Packaging and Labelling;

  Non-Prescribed Retail Sales: Presentation

  Insurance: Block Exemption: Presentation

  E. Research Council

  Adoption of 3rd Framework Programme

  Adoption of following programmes under 2nd Framework Programme:

  (Poss) Human Genome Research

  (Poss) Agricultural Research

  Co-operation Agreement with EFTA Countries on

  Science and (possibly) Medical and Health

  Research

  Common Positions on:

  (Poss) EURET (Transport)

  (Poss) EUROTRA (Revision)

  Conciliation with EP on Framework Programme

  Number Employed (whole-time equivalents)

  Resignations

  Year (1 April to 31 March)

  Managerial staff

  Support staff

  Total

  Managerial staff

  Support staff

  Total

  1979–80

  —

  —

  723

  —

  —

  58

  1980–81

  —

  —

  721

  —

  —

  58

  1981–82

  —

  —

  717

  —

  —

  58

  1982–83

  —

  —

  732

  —

  —

  58

  310
  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 5 February. Ministers will take stock of recent developments in EC/US trade relations including EC acceptance of the GATT panel report on the EC's oilseeds regime and the present position of the hormones dispute. The Council is expected to discuss relations with Eastern and central Europe, and preparations for the Bonn CSCE conference. There will also be preliminary discussions on youth exchange schemes for Eastern Europe (TEMPUS) and the European training foundation. Ministers are expected to discuss proposals from the Commission on European Community policy on Japanese car imports, and the Commission's paper on future EC/Mediterrranean relations, as well as the Commission's avis on Turkey's application for EC membership. Ministers will also be asked to agree transitional measures to cover the period between the expiry of the Lome III convention and the implementation, after ratification, of Lome IV. Ministers will discuss preparations for the inter governmental conference on economic and monetary union.

  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 12 February to consider a medium term loan for Hungary. The Financial Regulation will be taken with an aim to reach agreement on a revision in March. The Council will also discuss the implementation of surveillance procedures during stage one of economic and monetary union.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 12 and 13 February to discuss the annual price fixing, bovine semen and brucellosis in sheep and goats. It may also discuss the proof of export relating to Annexe II documents, the monitoring of export refunds, bovine somatotrophin, African swine fever in Sardinia and food aid for Poland and Romania.

  At the Internal Market Council on 22 February Ministers will discuss a number of measures relevant to the completion of the single market. Political agreement on the substance of the proposals for the three rights of residence directives was reached at the IMC meeting on 21 December. The question of the appropriate legal bases for the directives remains outstanding and is due to be discussed at the meeting on 22 February.

  The Research Council will meet on 26 February. The agenda anticipates the adoption of two Research and Development programme proposals, human genome research and agricultural research, and the adoption of co-operation agreements withe EFTA countries on the SCIENCE (Stimulation of the cooperation and interchange of European scientists) and medical and public health research programmes. It is expected that common positions will be agreed on the EURET (Transport) and EUROTA (Machine translation) research programmes. The Research Council will also undertake the conciliation procedure with the European Parliament on the third framework programme for research and technological development, 1990–94 and may consequently be in a position to adopt the third framework programme.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state, by grade, the number of employees of the Scottish Development Agency who have resigned from the agency in each of the past 10 years, and the number of employees at a convenient date in each year.

  Mr. Lang
  The readily available information is set out in the table herewith:
  311

  Number Employed (whole-time equivalents)

  Resignations

  Year (1 April to 31 March)

  Managerial staff

  Support staff

  Total

  Managerial staff

  Support staff

  Total

  1983–84

  —

  —

  711

  —

  —

  44

  1984–85

  221

  430

  651

  26

  37

  63

  1985–86

  315

  377·5

  692·5

  23

  21

  44

  1986–87

  329

  354

  683

  19

  29

  48

  1987–88

  349

  345·5

  694·5

  34

  24

  58

  1988–89

  398

  286·5

  684·5

  38

  37

  75

  Prior to 1984–85, most staff fell within Whitley council grades, with others coming into certain industrial and miscellaneous categories. Information on resignations by individual grades before 1984–85 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In 1984–85 a performance-related pay scheme was introduced for managerial staff under which staff were no longer positioned in grades. Each post is given a "job score" based on evaluation of the duties involved, for the purpose of determining salary level.

  I shall write to the hon. Member with the information by grade for the support staff from 1984–85.

  North-East River Purification Board
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the rivers for which the north-east river purification board is responsible and which are used as part of the Grampian water supply;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the current situation in the north-east river purification board with particular regard to the cancelled appointment of the post of general manager;

  (3) what are the current duties and structure of the north-east river purification board; and whether there have been any recent changes in these duties and the structure of the board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to him on 31 January 1990.

  Govan Initiative
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any of his Departments or the Scottish Development Agency has received from Govan Initiative its secure communities project report on Teucharhill; and what responses they have made.

  Mr. Lang
  The secure communities project report on Teucharhill has not been formally submitted to any Scottish Office Department nor to the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution the Scottish Development Agency made to the Govan Initiative secure communities project; and what proportion of the total it represented.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency has made no direct contribution to this project, although it does contribute towards the funding of Govan Initiative Limited. The project has received Government support through the urban programme.

  Labour Clubs (Dundee)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Tayside indicating(a) how many police officers have been involved in investigating alleged irregularities in the running of the Labour clubs in Ardler, Menzieshill and Whitfield, Dundee, (b) how many police hours have been spent on their investigating, (c) what is the estimated cost so far and (d) how many reports have been made to the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal by the investigating officers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand from the chief constable that six police officers have spent about 3,500 man hours investigating these matters at a cost of approximately £36,000. The investigating officers have made several reports to the procurator fiscal during this investigation, which is not yet concluded.

  Erskine Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest accumulated debt on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The accumulated debt at 31 March 1988 was £7168 million. Accounts for 1988–89 will be laid before Parliament later this spring.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he plans to take concerning the finances of the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No decision has yet been taken on the financing of the bridge beyond the end of the tolling period in 1991.

  Mr Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure for the overall operating deficit on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest account for 1987–88 shows an operating surplus for the year of £784,763.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to write off the accumulated debt on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Future financing arrangements for the Erskine bridge are under consideration.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to(a) end or (b) increase tolls on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No decisions have yet been taken.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for East Lothian on 14 December 1989,Official Report, column 807, in which he undertook to write to the hon. Member about the review of the staffing formula for secondary schools, if he will now write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Lang
  I have written to the hon. Member.

  Public Land Sales
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rules govern the advertising for sale of public land in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 January 1990]: Advertising the sale of public land is carried out in accordance with instructions issued by the owning body and is general practice except in special circumstances where it is judged that the best overall benefit to the public interest is achieved without advertising. In these circumstances, it is usual for an open market value to be assessed.

  Health board

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  171

  181

  194

  215

  240

  Ayrshire and Arran

  149

  159

  173

  191

  212

  Borders

  150

  161

  173

  197

  233

  Dumfries and Galloway

  197

  206

  208

  236

  259

  Fife

  151

  165

  180

  194

  214

  Forth Valley

  185

  200

  215

  235

  259

  Grampian

  199

  210

  222

  243

  276

  Greater Glasgow

  318

  336

  355

  382

  429

  Highland

  205

  213

  231

  250

  278

  Lanarkshire

  160

  169

  179

  192

  216

  Lothian

  247

  260

  282

  302

  337

  Orkney

  126

  129

  141

  158

  171

  Shetland

  129

  137

  145

  169

  194

  Tayside

  282

  292

  312

  332

  370

  Western Isles

  151

  161

  170

  190

  203

DEFENCE

  Military Nuclear Materials
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom chiefs of defence staff revealed any details to their counterparts from the Warsaw pact of United Kingdom production capacity and stockpile of unsafeguarded military nuclear materials in the meeting in Vienna that began on 16 January.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Lost Property
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the 112 vehicles and 25 items of plant lost over a four-year period at an Army unit outlined in the "Losses Statement of the Appropriations Account 1988–89, Class I, Vote 1"; and what action he is taking in respect of the likely fraud or misappropriation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The circumstances of this loss are that the vehicles and plant were written off throughout the whole of the Falklands in the four-year period 1982 to

  Sport 2000
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to respond to the report of the Scottish Sports Council, Sport 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: I discussed the Sport 2000 report with Professor Raymond Miguel, chairman of the Scottish Sports Council, on 20 October 1989. As the document points out, sport has an important contribution to make to the health, social fabric and economy of Scotland.

  Hospital Spending
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report, hospital expenditure per head for each of the regional health authorities in Scotland for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: The information is as follows:

  1986, in the immediate aftermath of Operation Corporate when operational needs were of the highest priority and proper accounting systems had not been installed.

  The lack of accounting controls at that time meant that, although there was no evidence either way, the possibility of fraud or misappropriation could not be entirely discounted. However, full stores accounting procedures and systems are now in operation and all vehicles and plant in theatre are, therefore, properly controlled and documented.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the estimated sum lost by failure to make adequate charges for the use of support elements at a military establishment outlined in the "Losses Statement of the Appropriations Account 1988–89, Class I, Vote 1".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The sum noted in the appropriation account 1988–89 is in respect of estimated losses in revenue arising from low charges levied on non-Ministry of Defence students attending courses at the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham in the period August 1984 to July 1988. The sum represents a proportion of the military overheads of the establishment in that period, provision for which was omitted from
  315
  course price calculations following the contracting out of the academic and academic support task to Cranfield institute of technology in August 1984. A staged increase in course prices has been carried out in order to bring them up to the correct levels and this has been reached in the majority of cases. We anticipate that the remaining courses will reach correct price levels in the next two to three years.

  Sellafield (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments have been made by his Department to British Nuclear Fuels plc over the past five years in regard to post-operational decommissioning work on facilities at Sellafield used to carry out contracts for his Department; what proportion of the work required arose from the pre-1971 period; and over what period of time negotiations were entered into over the payments for the work.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has paid £12·5 million to British Nuclear Fuels plc in respect of decommissioning work carried out on facilities at Sellafield. All the payments made so far relate to pre-1971 liabilities.

  Formal discussions concerning the basis on which payments for pre-1971 liabilities would be made to the company took place in the period 1986 to 1988. Those discussions involved not only the MOD but other bodies concerned with work at Sellafield. The MOD made its first payments for decommissioning work in early 1989.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to review the level of defence procurement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As normal, plans for all aspects of defence expenditure, including procurement, will be reviewed in the 1990 public expenditure survey.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the radar order for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 23 January 1990, at columns 869–72.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many countries have made purchase inquiries about the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has already received several inquiries relating to potential future sales of the European fighter aircraft, and we expect many more closer to the aircraft's date of completion. My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that it has been the consistent policy of successive Administrations not to comment on individual applications for defence exports.

  Service Personnel (Benefits)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what figures he has for the number of services personnel and their families receiving (i) social security benefits and (ii) housing benefit.
  316
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is not held by the Ministry of Defence. Any social security benefit or local authority housing benefit which a service man may receive is a private matter concerning himself and the Department of Social Security or the local authority, and does not have to be reported to the Ministry of Defence.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those contracts his Department has with Blue Circle Industries plc and its subsidiaries.

  Mr. Neubert
  We have no current headquarters contracts with Blue Circle Industries plc. Information on subsidiary companies could be provided only at disproportionate costs and, in any event, it is not our custom to release details of individual contracts for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contracts between his Department and Armitage Shanks.

  Mr. Neubert
  Following the holding reply I gave on 16 November 1989, at column 417, I wrote to my hon. Friend informing him that we were considering, with Armitage Shanks, the precise implications of the proposed closure of its Barrhead factory, and that the extent to which alternative sources of supply would be needed was not yet clear. That remains the position.

  Piers Helps
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 4 December 1989 referring to Piers Helps.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces wrote to my hon. Friend on 29 January 1990.

  HMS Conqueror
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 62, on what grounds he has decided not to declassify the captain's narrative of HMS Conqueror's Falklands deployment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The captain's narrative contains information of current operational and technical significance.

  Common Land
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the cases when the Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 has been used in combination with the Defence Acts 1842 and 1854 to extinguish commoners' rights over any common land in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: The Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 has been used in combination with the Defence Acts 1842 and 1854 to extinguish rights of common on at least three occasions: at RAF Fylingdales in 1960, at RAF Lakenheath in 1961, and at RAF Woodbridge in 1964. There may have been other instances, but a comprehensive list could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Surgery
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, in order of frequency and with the estimated number of operations, the 10 most common forms of surgery for which patients are admitted to hospitals in(a) Wales and (b) each health authority in Wales.

  OPCS operation codes1

  Type of operation

  Number

  Wales

  703–706

  Dilation, curettage, biopsy, and excision of lesion of cervix

  9,937

  420, 421, 425–433, 439

  Operation of stomach—other

  9,291

  607, 608

  Cystoscopy (with destruction of lesion)

  8,369

  770–779

  Post-natal or post-abortion operations

  7,646

  752, 753, 758–762

  Delivery operations—excluding normal, Caesarian section and forceps

  7,411

  780–789

  Treatment of fracture by operations

  7,393

  912–914

  Excision of superficial lesion

  7,219

  941–959

  Vascular procedures and operations with ill-defined site

  5,610

  742

  Termination of pregnancy (excluding hysterotomy)

  4,732

  230–239

  Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy

  4,646

  Clwyd

  420,421, 425–433,439

  Operation on stomach—other

  1,587

  607, 608

  Cystoscopy (with destruction of lesion)

  1,135

  780–789

  Treatment of fracture by operations

  1,113

  703–706

  Dilation, curettage, biopsy, and excision of lesion of cervix

  1,074

  468

  Sigmoidoscopy

  1,052

  230–239

  Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy

  1,018

  912–914

  Excision of superficial lesion

  954

  170–179

  Operations on lens

  927

  941–959

  Vascular procedures and operations with ill-defined site

  849

  770–779

  Post-natal or post-abortion operations

  762

  East Dyfed

  420, 421, 425–433, 439

  Operations on stomach—other

  1,184

  607, 608

  Cystoscopy (with destruction of lesion)

  745

  703–706

  Dilation, curettage, biopsy, and excision of lesion of cervix

  664

  780–789

  Treatment of fracture by operations

  624

  170–179

  Operations on lens

  583

  752, 753, 758–762

  Delivery operations—excluding normal, Caesarian section and forceps

  576

  230–239

  Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy

  543

  912–914

  Excision of superficial lesion

  542

  941–959

  Vascular procedures and operations with ill-defined site

  532

  210,211,215–224

  Operations on nose (excluding nasal septum)

  505

  Pembrokeshire

  752, 753, 758–762

  Delivery operations—excluding normal, Caesarian section and forceps

  450

  607, 608

  Cystoscopy (with destruction of lesion)

  420

  770–779

  Post-natal or post-abortion operations

  401

  780–789

  Treatment of fracture by operations

  393

  703–706

  Dilation, curettage, biopsy, and excision of lesion of cervix

  343

  400–409

  Operation on abdominal wall, peritoneum, and mesentery

  323

  941–959

  Vascular procedures and operations with ill-defined site

  317

  912–914

  Excision of superficial lesion

  286

  742

  Other termination of pregnancy (excluding hysterotomy)

  241

  440–445

  Operations on appendix

  226

  Gwent

  912–914

  Excision of superficial lesion

  2,067

  770–779

  Post-natal or post-abortion operations

  1,905

  607–608

  Cystoscopy (with destruction of lesion)

  1,635

  703–706

  Dilatation, curettage, biospy, and excision of lesion of cervix

  1,588

  420,421,425–433,439

  Operations on stomach—other

  1,331

  752, 753, 758–762

  Delivery operations—excluding normal, Caesarian section and forceps

  1,189

  780–789

  Treatment of fracture by operations

  1,058

  764–769

  Caesarian section

  742

  410,411

  Inguinal hernia operations

  632

  210,211,215–224

  Operations on nose (excluding nasal septum)

  616

  Gwynedd

  420, 421, 425–433, 439

  Operations on stomach—other

  1,091

  703–706

  Dilatation, curettage, biopsy, and excision of lesion of cervix

  1,082

  780–789

  Treatment of fracture by operations

  600

  400–409

  Operations of abdominal wall, peritoneum, and mesentery

  584

  607, 608

  Cystoscopy (with destruction of lesion)

  581

  752, 753, 758–762

  Delivery operations—excluding normal, Caesarian section and forceps

  571

  318
  Mr. Grist
  The available figures for 1987 are shown in the table. However, the information may understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical details relating to patient discharges and deaths.
  319

  OPCS operation codes1

  Type of operation

  Number

  170–179

  Operations on lens

  460

  440–445

  Operations on appendix

  457

  468

  Sigmoidoscopy

  397

  764–769

  Caesarian section

  371

  Mid Glamorgan

  703–706

  Dilatation, curettage, biopsy, and excision of lesion of cervix

  2,228

  607,608

  Cystoscopy (with destruction of lesion)

  1,725

  770–779

  Post-natal or post-abortion operations

  1,602

  780–789

  Treatment of fracture by operations

  1,601

  752, 753, 758–762

  Delivery operations—excluding normal, Caesarian section and forceps

  1,601

  420, 421, 425–433, 439

  Operations on stomach—other

  1,424

  912–914

  Excision of superficial lesion

  1,293

  651

  Ligation of vasectomy of vas deferens

  1,145

  941–959

  Vascular procedures and operations with ill-defined site

  971

  764–769

  Caesarian section

  931

  Powys

  703–706

  Dilatation, curettage, biopsy, and excision of lesion of cervix

  106

  651

  Ligation or vasectomy of vas deferens

  93

  770–779

  Post-natal or post-abortion operations

  78

  410,411

  Inguinal hernia operations

  76

  230–239

  Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy

  50

  742

  Other termination of pregnancy

  40

  890–898

  Operations on veins

  40

  752, 753, 758–762

  Delivery operations—excluding normal, Caesarian section and forceps

  36

  754–757, 763

  Forceps delivery

  35

  400–409

  Operations on abdominal wall, peritoneum, and mesentery

  30

  South Glamorgan

  250, 251

  Drainage of abscess and simple dental extraction

  1,831

  703–706

  Dilation, curettage, biopsy, and excision of lesion of cervix

  1,643

  420, 421, 425–433, 439

  Operations on stomach—other

  1,609

  770–779

  Post-natal or post-abortion operations

  1,471

  912–914

  Excision of superficial lesion

  1,431

  300–329

  Operations on heart and intrathoracic vessels

  1,218

  607,608

  Cystoscopy (with destruction of lesion)

  1,163

  252–259

  Operations on teeth, gums and jaw—other

  1,145

  780–789

  Treatment of fracture by operations

  1,069

  752, 753, 758–762

  Delivery operations—excluding normal, Caesarian section and forceps

  957

  West Glamorgan

  941–959

  Vascular procedures and operations with ill-defined site

  2,016

  742

  Other termination of pregnancy

  1,784

  752, 753, 758–762

  Delivery operations—excluding normal, Caesarian section and forceps

  1,485

  703–706

  Dilation, curettage, biopsy, and excision of lesion of cervix

  139

  880–889

  Operation on arteries

  1,049

  703–706

  Cystoscopy (with destruction of lesion)

  964

  780–789

  Treatment of fracture by operations

  928

  420, 421, 425–433, 439

  Operations on stomach—other

  870

  680–683, 685–689

  Operations involving oviduct—excluding division and ligation

  840

  770–779

  Post-natal or post-abortion operations

  811

  1 Based on a condensed list of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys classification of surgical operations,3rd revision.

  Health Authority Income
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each health authority(a) the net income from private patients and clinics and (b) the amounts written off as bad debts in each year since 1979.

  Net income from private patients1

  £ thousands

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  120·1

  171·2

  202·7

  156·6

  251·8

  305·4

  363·4

  358·9

  419·2

  460·2

  East Dyfed2

  63·7

  111·6

  117·4

  106·8

  90·9

  139·5

  153·4

  194·4

  220·9

  282·3

  Gwent

  3·2

  2·2

  0·9

  0·4

  —

  7·0

  16·1

  13·2

  16·8

  29·0

  Gwynedd

  69·6

  98·4

  99·4

  97·9

  107·4

  104·5

  201·1

  209·8

  203·8

  200·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  11·9

  14·3

  22·0

  14·5

  29·5

  20·4

  27·2

  51·5

  52·2

  63·4

  Pembrokeshire2

  —

  —

  —

  400

  461

  58·4

  62·2

  84·8

  871

  90·5

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  41·4

  26·5

  18·2

  30·3

  29·0

  45·4

  91·2

  101·5

  85·6

  97·4

  West Glamorgan

  12·7

  19·0

  33·4

  350

  47·5

  59·4

  86·3

  100·7

  141·5

  141·2

  WHCSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL WALES

  332·6

  443·2

  494·0

  481·5

  602·2

  740·0

  1,001·2

  1,114·8

  1,226·6

  1,364·4

  320
  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the following tables:
  321
  Source: Health authorities annual accounts.

  1 Consists of private in-patients (section 65), private non-resident patients (section 65) and accommodation and services provided under section 58 of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  2 Dyfed health authority until 1982–83.

  Bad debts and claims abandoned: Private patients3

  £ thousand

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  2·9

  2·2

  1·4

  1·4

  East Dyfed4

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  0·5

  2·7

  1·1

  0·5

  Gwent

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  0·1

  2·9

  1·2

  0·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  0·6

  1·0

  0·4

  0·7

  Pembrokeshire4

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  2·2

  1·7

  0·4

  1·9

  Powys

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  0·0

  0·2

  1·2

  0·2

  West Glamorgan

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  —

  1·0

  2·2

  4·2

  WHCSA

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  6·3

  11·7

  7·9

  9·6

  3 Consists of private in-patients (section 65) and private non-resident patients (section 66). Private patients' bad debts and claims abandoned were not separately identified until 1985–86.

  4 Dyfed health authority until 1982–83.

  Source: Health authorities annual accounts.

  Bad debts and claims abandoned: total

  £ thousand

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  0·9

  3·7

  3·3

  4·2

  1·0

  37·1

  12·6

  9·3

  11·2

  3·0

  East Dyfed5

  0·6

  1·0

  32

  2·1

  28·8

  3·8

  4·4

  200·4

  7·0

  6·2

  Gwent

  0·5

  1·7

  0–7

  1·2

  0·4

  2·1

  2·7

  4·2

  5·1

  12·1

  Gwynedd

  0·1

  13

  1·9

  4·8

  4·0

  6·3

  12·2

  5·4

  14·9

  22·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·5

  0·4

  0·3

  1·0

  3·8

  9·1

  6·8

  16·0

  19·0

  12·1

  Pembrokeshire5

  —

  —

  —

  03

  0·3

  11·1

  2·2

  1·7

  1·9

  3·9

  Powys

  1·1

  0·9

  0·2

  02

  0·5

  1·4

  0·7

  0·7

  1·2

  1·1

  South Glamorgan

  12

  2·1

  1·6

  2·8

  8·3

  37·5

  6·5

  17·2

  117·1

  9·5

  West Glamorgan

  0·8

  51·9

  3·1

  4·2

  8·5

  107·9

  12·7

  33·8

  19·8

  132

  WHCSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17·4

  246·2

  253·9

  —

  —

  Wales

  5·7

  63·0

  14·3

  20·8

  55·6

  2337

  307·0

  542·6

  197·3

  83·9

  5 Dyfed health authority until 1982–83·

  Source: Health authorities annual accounts.

  Wintech
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make available to the public the correspondence between his Department and the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency regarding the future of Wintech;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to expand the work of Wintech; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will place copies of correspondence between his Department and the chairman of the board of the Welsh Development Agency regarding the future of Wintech in the Library;

  (4) if he will review the provision of technological and scientific support services to industry by the Welsh Development Agency;

  (5) what representations he has (a) had and (b) proposes to have about the future of Wintech.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is agency policy to keep its operations under continuous review in order to respond more effectively to the changing demands of industry. A review of the agency's technology development activities was completed last year and changes announced in September 1989. These were directed to focusing the agency's technology activities more closely on improving service to high technology businesses in Wales and increasing efforts to secure technology transfer through the attraction of key research and development operations to Wales, in order to enhance Wales' technological base.

  Apart from the hon. Gentleman's questions, I have received no representations concerning the future of the
  322
  agency's technology development activities; nor do I intend to elicit any. It is not my policy to publish such correspondence as I may have with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Drainage
  Sir John Stradling Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to deal with the question of drainage rates and the relationship of the internal drainage boards' finance and membership in relation to district councils.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Internal Drainage Board (Finance) Regulations 1990, which came into force on 24 January, make provision both for the financing arrangements for internal drainage boards and for the membership of these boards. Each internal drainage board is given power to raise its expenses by means of a drainage rate on the agricultural sector, and special levies on the charging authorities, within its area. The regulations provide that the composition of each board should. broadly reflect the relative financial contributions of the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors to its expenditure. Members representing the agricultural sector will continue to be elected or otherwise qualify as at present. Those representing the non-agricultural sector will be appointed by the district councils.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that individuals who had applied for housing improvement and repair grants and(a) were told that there was no hope of money being forthcoming and therefore had to go ahead without help but (b) would now have received money under the recently announced open-ending of grant money, should be compensated for at least a part of what they have lost.

  Mr. Grist
  The priority given to home renovation grants must be a matter for individual local authorities to determine. There is no justification for compensation for those who have undertaken work without grant.

  Hospital Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) against what criteria he intends to advise health authorities in Wales to judge the advisability of contracting a particular service to a hospital outside the authority's own area;

  (2) how he intends to assess the impact on journeys for patients and their families of any decisions by a health authority in Wales to contract particular services to a hospital outside that authority's own area;

  (3) whether he will instruct health authorities in Wales to assess the likely impact on travel for patients and their families of contracting any service to a hospital outside the health authority's own area and to weigh that assessment in the balance with other relevant criteria before letting any contract.

  Mr. Grist
  It will be the responsibility of district health authorities to secure an adequate range, quality and depth of services for their local populations through appropriate contractual arrangements. The document "Contracts for Health Services: Operations Principles", which was circulated to the National Health Service in Wales on 20

  Payments of Distinction Awards to Consultants1

  Health Authority

  1984–85£

  1985–86£

  1986–87£

  1987–88£

  1988–89£

  Clwyd

  151,435

  169,892

  176,187

  166,838

  328,862

  East Dyfed

  85,265

  113,465

  93,683

  87,044

  94,720

  Gwent

  193,194

  216,255

  257,142

  321,938

  343,278

  Gwynedd

  58,123

  70,186

  95,904

  115,189

  113,659

  Mid Glamorgan

  111,784

  86,101

  121,133

  127,622

  164,590

  Pembrokeshire

  26,317

  30,106

  30,559

  51,174

  54,734

  Powys

  4,489

  9,780

  10,700

  5,717

  12,364

  South Glamorgan

  1,146,812

  1,360,037

  1,621,917

  1,814,516

  1,906,649

  West Glamorgan

  197,253

  217,700

  210,540

  8,752

  253,742

  Wales

  1,974,672

  2,273,522

  2,617,765

  2,698,790

  3,272,598

  Allocations to Health Authorities for Consultant Distinction Awards

  Health Authority

  1988–89

  1989–9023

  1990–9123

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Clwyd

  0·599

  0·348

  0·231

  East Dyfed

  0·142

  0·127

  0·138

  Gwent

  0·418

  0·382

  0·412

  Gwynedd

  0·281

  0·216

  0·231

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·344

  0·168

  0·181

  Pembrokeshire

  0095

  0·065

  0·069

  Powys

  0·014

  0·006

  0·007

  South Glamorgan

  2·092

  2·108

  2·277

  West Glamorgan

  0·522

  0·320

  0343

  Total all Health

  4·507

  3·740

  3·889

  324
  October 1989, stated that, in determining the content of the contracts they seek to let, district health authorities will need to reconcile need for service, quality of access to service, and value for money in the mode of provision. As now, the majority of services will be provided in local hospitals. However, referrals already take place to hospitals in other districts and health authorities will therefore wish to make some contracts for such referrals.

  In considering these contracts, authorities will carefully consult general practitioners to establish anticipated patterns of referral and will take into account the impact of travelling on patients and their families. We should emphasise that in all cases the object will be to secure the patterns of referral preferred by referrers themselves and that no patients will be forced to travel against their will for treatment. The arrangements made by health authorities to secure services for their populations will be subject to scrutiny in the annual reviews of performance chaired by director, National Health Service (Wales).

  Consultants (Distinction Awards)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the amount of distinction awards paid to consultants in each of the area health authorities of Wales for the last five years;

  (2) what sums have been made available for top-up bonuses to hospital consultants in each health authority in Wales in the financial year 1988–89 and in the current financial year; and how much will be budgeted for each authority for the 1990–91 financial year;

  (3) what total sum has been made available for distinction awards to hospital consultants in Wales in the financial year 1988–89 and in the current financial year; and how much will be made available in the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows:

  Notes:

  1 Medical and dental consultants, NHS staff and honorary contract holders

  2 Allocation in 1989–90 takes account of overprovision in 1988–89.

  3 Further funding may be made available in the light of any recommendation for increases in the numbers of consultant distinction awards by the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the procedure by which distinction awards are allocated for senior hospital consultants in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Distinction awards are made on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards. That committee approaches its
  325
  regional network of committees, the Royal College and Faculties, the public health laboratory service, the Medical Research Council and regional specialist advisers for nominations. The chairman of the committee then visits each regional committee between May and September to discuss their recommendations and all the nominations received from other sources in order to draw up a provisional list for the consideration and final decision of the advisory committee.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the criteria against which distinction awards are made to senior hospital consultants in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  There are no formal objective criteria of award worthiness. General guidelines only are used by the awards committees which look for performances"over and above the call of duty."
  Principally these can be indicated by (a) clinical excellence and recognition of leadership in a specialty; (b) research, innovation and improvement in the service; and (c) hard work and outstanding service to the NHS.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of hospital consultants who received top-up bonuses in each health authority in Wales in the financial year 1988–89 and in the current financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of practitioners who received distinction awards in 1988–89 in each health authority are as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  35

  East Dyfed

  17

  Gwent

  35

  Gwynedd

  23

  Mid Glamorgan

  24

  Pembrokeshire

  6

  Powys

  4

  South Glamorgan

  127

  West Glamorgan

  36

  Notes:

  Although practitioners are eligible for only one distinction award, some are included more than once in the above list because they work for more than one health authority.

  Figures for 1989–90 are not available because the awards for this financial year have not yet been announced.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the period of years for which any distinction awards will operate when awarded to any hospital consultant in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Distinction awards are, at present, paid to consultants until they retire. The White Paper Working for Patients" proposes a number of changes which would result in the new awards being reviewable every five years and new or increased awards being pensionable only if the practitioner works for another three years in the NHS.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who is involved in deciding the allocation of distinction awards to senior hospital consultants in Wales and who takes the final decision.

  Mr. Grist
  Consultant distinction awards in Wales are made by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards.
  326
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the maximum salary of National Health Service consultants in Wales, inclusive of distinction awards.

  Mr. Grist
  The maximum salary of NHS consultants is currently £38,340. In addition to this, a consultant may be in receipt of one of the following distinction awards A+ £36,420; A £26,840; B £15,340 or C £6,760. The current maximum compares with a maximum of £15,279 in 1979, an increase in real terms of 36 per cent.

  Truancy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on truancy in each of the local education authorities in Wales;

  (2) what is his estimate of truancy as a percentage in the (a) fourth and (b) fifth years in high schools in (i) Clwyd, (ii) Powys, (iii) Gwynedd, (iv) Mid Glamorgan, (v) South Glamorgan, (vi) West Glamorgan, (vii) Gwent; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what measures he proposes to lessen truancy concerning the schools of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information on truancy levels is not held centrally. The committee of inquiry into discipline in schools in England and Wales made several recommendations aimed at improving attendance rates. Arising from this the Welsh education support grant programme for 1990–91 makes provision for payment of grant to LEAs for schemes to improve attendance at schools.

  The remit of LEA education welfare officers includes responsibility for following up cases of unjustified absence.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to make available £.4 million to health authorities in Wales to tackle waiting lists; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what new measures he proposes to take to eliminate hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We are concerned that some patients have to wait too long for their treatment, which is why health authorities in Wales have been asked to mount a special initiative to reduce such waiting times through more efficient use of their discretionary resources. Authorities' own efforts have been supported by over £4 million of Welsh Office funding since 1986. These intitatives will be further supplemented this year by three specialist centres to treat those who have been waiting too long for treatments such as cataract removal or hip replacement. Subject to approval of the supply estimates, we plan to make available a total of £2·3 million in 1990–91 on the waiting times and treatment centre initiatives.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people are waiting for in-patient treatment in(a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport;

  (2) how many people are waiting for non-urgent surgery in (a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport;

  (3) how many people are waiting for out-patient treatment in (a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport;

  (4) how many people are waiting for urgent treatment in (a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport.
  327
  Mr. Grist
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Waiting list as at 31 March 1989

  Wales

  Gwent

  Newport1

  People waiting for:

  In patient treatment

  41,964

  9,531

  5,538

  Of which:

  Non-urgent surgery 2

  37,790

  8,377

  4,874

  Urgent in-patient treatment

  3,493

  1,124

  641

  Out-patient consultation

  90,745

  13,616

  7,039

  1 People waiting for treatment/consultation at Royal Gwent and St. Woolos hospitals.

  2 People waiting for treatment in surgical specialties which are: general surgery; ear, nose and throat; traumatic and orthopaedic surgery; opthalmology; urology; plastic surgery; dental surgery; neurosurgery; gynaecology and cardiac surgery.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to reduce hospital waiting lists in(a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport.

  Mr. Grist
  The prime responsibility for reducing hospital waiting lists rests with district health authorities using their discretionary resources. Authorities' efforts have been supported by over £4 million of Welsh Office funding since 1986, of which £866,000 has been spent in Gwent on a scheme for trauma and orthopaedics based at the Royal Gwent hospital, Newport. This year will see three specialist centres to offer patients across Wales the choice of earlier treatment for key disabling conditions. The orthopaedic centre in South Glamorgan and the general surgery centre in Mid Glamorgan should be of particular benefit to patients in Gwent. Subject to approval of the supply estimates, we plan to allocate some £2.3 million to the waiting times and treatment centre initiatives in 1990–91.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will meet Clwyd and Gwynedd city councils to discuss rail electrification from Crewe-Holyhead; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will meet the standing conference on regional policy in south Wales to discuss the rail electrification of Paddington-Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. Electrification is a matter for the British Railways Board.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current projected cost of the repair and maintenance work on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The current projected costs for repair and maintenance work, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, are as follows:

  1989–90£ million

  1990–91£ million

  1991–92£ million

  1992–93£ million

  Repair (including strengthening

  14·9

  12·2

  2·8

  0·1

  Maintenance

  2·3

  2·7

  1·8

  1·8

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated final cost of repair work likely to be on the Severn bridge.
  328
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The final cost of repair and strengthening work on the Severn bridge is estimated to be £70 million at 1989–90 prices.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the nature of work still to be done on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The work still to be done on the Severn bridge involves completing the jacking up of the piers and resurfacing.

  Health Service (Resources)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase the financial resources of the Health Service in(a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport.

  Mr. Grist
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 11 January when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the revenue and capital allocations to health authorities in Wales for 1990–91, including those in respect of the Gwent health authority. The distribution of resources within the district is a matter for the health authority to decide.

  The distribution of the further sums referred to in the reply as being for centrally directed developments in 1990–91 will be announced in due course.

  Gwent Health Authority
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the Gwent area health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to meet the Gwent district health authority.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Investment
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of investment in Belfast by the private sector.

  Mr. Needham
  Private investment in Belfast has increased dramatically in recent years. This is particularly so in the city centre where major projects completed in the past five years, under way or programmed total £573 million. In addition, during the past five years IDB has backed industrial projects with a total planned investment of £191 million.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what policies he will be pursuing in 1990 to attract inward investment to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The task of attracting inward investment to Northern Ireland falls to the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, whose policies are published in its medium-term strategy 1985–90. I am currently discussing with the IDB a new medium-term strategy, effective from April 1990. Although the detail has yet to be agreed, the basic thrust gives a commitment"to concentrate the promotional efforts in major markets for internationally mobile investment and sectorally in areas where Northern Ireland has particular strengths."
  329
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of inward investment in the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  Since 1 April 1986, a total of 5,288 jobs have been promoted in Northern Ireland through new foreign-owned projects. In addition a further 5,773 jobs should result from investment into Northern Ireland by GB-owned companies. These projects have brought total new financial investment of £576 million. I am encouraged by this level of activity which includes some notable successes such as the Province's first South Korean investment.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of investment in Londonderry by the private sector.

  Mr. Needham
  A complete picture is not available of investment in Londonderry by the private sector. Statistics are, however, available for the period 1983–89 which produces a total of £40 million either spent, under way or projected. This £40 million figure essentially relates to retail, offices, shops, restaurants and hotel developments.

  Inter-party Talks
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of inter-party talks among the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made towards devolution in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans for devolution.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to pursue the establishment of devolved institutions in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

  Castle Court Development
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet a deputation of independent traders occupying premises off Smithfield market, Belfast, to discuss issues arising from the Castle Court development.

  Mr. Needham
  I am prepared to meet the Smithfield traders. Meetings have already taken place with officials and all possible action has been taken to minimise the adverse effect during construction of this major £100 million development.

  Security
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in the Six Counties.
  330
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since I answered a similar question on 14 December 1989, eight people have been killed in Northern Ireland in incidents directly related to terrorism. They included six civilians, a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Last year 430 people were charged with serious terrorist offences in Northern Ireland and large quantities of lethal weapons, ammunition and explosives were recovered, both in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report on the security situation in Mid-Ulster; and what further security measures he will introduce to secure the safety of constituents of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.

  Mr. Cope
  I am always particularly conscious of those communities that have borne a high level of terrorist attacks. I have regular and frequent meetings with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and others with responsibility for security to discuss security not only in Mid-Ulster but in Northern Ireland as a whole. New measures which might improve the security situation are under constant review; where practicable they are implemented.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's security policies in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  A measure of the Government's success is the fact that the terrorists have not advanced any of their causes by one step in many years of violence. The Government, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army and the people of Northern Ireland remain resolute. Terrorism is futile.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of health spending in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Total funding for the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland in 1989–90 will amount to £;962 million—equivalent to about £609 per head of population. This remains substantially above levels in England and Wales and is a continued recognition of the Province's need for additional health and social services care, despite other pressures or resources.

  Shoppers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last raised the Irish Government's restrictions on the freedom of movement of southern Irish shoppers into Northern Ireland at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

  Mr. Cope
  We have raised with the Irish Government on several occasions recently, within the Conference and
  331
  elsewhere, the restrictions they have imposed on travellers' allowances. The European Court will now decide on the legality of the restrictions: its hearing will take place on 21 February, and the United Kingdom Government will be represented.

  Legal and Judicial Discussion
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had concerning legal and judicial matters pertaining to Northern Ireland and with whom.

  Mr. Cope
  The Secretary of State and I frequently have discussions with a wide range of people on a wide range of issues including legal and judicial matters. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific matter in mind, I will endeavour to provide the information requested.

  Beef Farmers
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken or proposes to take to alleviate the financial position of farmers involved in the beef industry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he intends to take to improve returns to beef producers in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have urged my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to seek a devaluation of the United Kingdom green pound in the context of this year's price-fixing round.

  We have also asked him to take steps to ensure that the maximum support allowable under the EC beef intervention arrangements is provided for the beef cattle market in Northern Ireland.

  The problem of low returns for beef production, particularly winter finishing, in Northern Ireland is not new. There are structural weaknesses in the beef production and processing sectors which need to be addressed and we have asked officials to examine possible solutions to these problems with the farming and commercial interests involved.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what matters were discussed in the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to a question from the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was discussed at the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I assume that the right hon. Member is referring to the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference which last met on 30 November 1989 and I refer him to the answer I gave earlier today to a question from the hon. Member for Dundee, West.

  Devolution
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland he will consult in pursuing his proposal to reopen discussions on devolution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I would expect to consult the leaders of all the main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland about devolution.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of his talks with Northern Ireland politicians concerning more local involvement in the government of the Province; and what interest has been shown in the possibility of establishing local authorities similar to the authorities within the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). In their talks with me, most Northern Ireland politicians have looked towards the establishment of a devolved form of government for Northern Ireland as a whole, with an appropriate role for representatives of the minority community. The Government would give serious consideration to any proposals for more local involvement which were workable and seemed likely to command widespread acceptance.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has recently had with Northern Ireland politicians concerning more local involvement in the government of the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last had formal discussions with the constitutional political parties in the Province.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Last year my right hon. Friend held meetings with the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party, the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party for Northern Ireland, the Workers party and the Ulster Progressive Unionist party at which the prospects for transferring powers to locally elected representatives were discussed. So far this year he has held such meetings with the Social Democratic and Labour party (most recently on 19 January); and I have met the leader of the Alliance party (most recently on 23 January). In addition, my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues have had many other meetings, formal or less formal, over recent months, with politicians from all the main constitutional political parties, when the prospects for political progress among other matters have been discussed.

  Irish Medium Education
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the availability of curriculum materials for Irish medium education for primary age children.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government recognise the need to improve the availability of curriculum materials in Irish and are giving financial assistance for the production of suitable materials. The needs will be kept under review as part of the implementation of the common curriculum.

  Road Casualties
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of road casualties.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1989 there were over 7,000 crashes or collisions involving personal injury or death. The total number of 11,611 casualties includes 9,416 slight injuries, 2,014 serious injuries and 181 deaths.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the programme to reduce road casualties.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Targets were set last autumn to reduce by one third within the 12 months to halloween 1990, the recent average road death total of 210 people, and to cut serious injuries by one third by the end of the century. The death rate is down by 20 per cent., though the period covered so far is too short to be significant.

  The newly established road casualty reduction unit will seek to create a climate of public opinion and awareness which is more acceptable to the effective promotion of road casualty reduction; and to examine and evaluate all existing road casualty reduction measures and to identify new measures.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Prime Minister of Eire; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Brooke
  I last met the Taoiseach when paying him a courtesy call in Dublin on 28 November 1989. It was not the occasion for discussion of substantive business.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).

  Social Security Administration
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the reorganisation and development of the social security administration.

  Mr. Needham
  Over the next few years the administration of social security will be improved through the introduction of a sophisticated new computerisation programme known as operational strategy. A major new system for the payment of income support was introduced last month and will be extended to cover all 34 social security offices by January 1991. Further systems for other benefits will be introduced later. This programme will mean a better service to the public, improved jobs and working conditions for staff and increased value for money for the taxpayer. It will cost £45 million and will break even in 1994–95.

  With the same aims of improving service quality and efficiency the Department of Health and Social Services is conducting a feasibility study to consider whether social
  334
  security operations in Northern Ireland should become an executive agency in line with the next steps initiative. The report of the study will be considered by Ministers shortly.

  Rural Development
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to encourage development in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is a need to focus and co-ordinate action towards social and economic development in the most deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland. An interdepartmental committee on rural development will review policies and programmes in these areas to ensure the maximum impact of existing expenditure with due sensitivity to identified needs in the areas themselves.

  The opportunities for further action will be examined in light of the committee's findings and recommendations.

  Security Forces
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives he has taken to promote public confidence in the security forces.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has taken to further public confidence in the security forces.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy).

  Integrated Education
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of integrated education.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are at present 10 integrated schools operating in Northern Ireland of which seven have achieved maintained status. The Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which comes into operation on 20 February 1990, introduces provisions that will facilitate the development of integrated schools and which will, I hope, increase the opportunity to opt for integrated education for those parents who wish it for their children.

  These provisions do not seek to impose integrated schools and the rate of progress will be determined entirely by parental demand.

  Community Workshops
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effects of proposed changes in the funding of youth training projects in community workshops.

  Mr. Needham
  Under the new arrangements community workshops will become recognised training organisations and there will be a greater emphasis on quality training with outcomes, including the attainment of vocational qualifications. The workshops will be paid a set amount per trainee and, compared with the present system, the management committee will have the freedom to make decisions on how to operate and how to organise
  335
  their training programmes. I have listened very carefully to the representations made to me in recent weeks and at my meeting last Monday with the Northern Ireland Association of Community Workshops I told them of modifications I had decided to make to the original proposals to meet their concerns. I am hopeful that the workshops' response will be positive and that they will now proceed to draw up their operational plans for 1990–91.

  Small County Towns
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his proposals to revitalise small county towns.

  Mr. Needham
  Since 1987 the Department of the Environment has been extending its environmental improvement programme outside the cities of Belfast and Londonderry and there are also programmes for comprehensive development, pedestrianisation and conservation and open space grants.

  The Department also administers a package of financial incentives for urban regeneration made available by the International Fund for Ireland. I understand that the fund is presently reviewing its programmes including its urban development programme which has provided support for regeneration of towns and villages outside Belfast and Londonderry.

  Shootings
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the shooting of the three men in west Belfast on 13 January.

  Mr. Cope
  I have nothing to add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and other hon. Members on 15 January 1990, at columns 21–27.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider a full scale review of the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  A review of the working of the Intergovernmental Conference as provided for in article 11 of the agreement was completed in May 1989. Copies of the report recording the outcome of .the review were placed in the Library at the time. There are no plans for a further review at this stage, but paragraph 29 of the review report provides that"If in the future it were to appear that the objectives of the Agreement could be more effectively served by changes in the scope and nature of the working of the Conference, consistent with the basic provisions and spirit of the Agreement the two governments would be ready in principle to consider such changes."

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to phase out the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government are committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and to the principles it embodies, but I remain ready to consider constructive proposals for political progress which have a wide measure of support.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the different categories of hospital beds there are at present; and how many there were for the equivalent categories 10 years ago.

  Mr. Needham
  The earliest year for which this information is available is 1980.

  Average daily number of available beds

  Category

  1980

  1988–89

  All specialties

  17,064

  14,686

  Acute

  7,168

  6,017

  Obstetrics

  732

  702

  Geriatric medicine

  2,528

  2,564

  Mental illness

  4,779

  3,900

  Mental handicap

  1,533

  1,345

  General practitioner beds

  324

  158

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the five largest hospital building projects in Northern Ireland currently under construction; and what is the projected cost of each.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Project

  Cost £ million

  New Antrim Hospital

  41·1

  Mater Hospital, Belfast-reconstruction scheme

  13·8

  Gransha Hospital, Londonderry-Geriatric Unit and Day Hospital

  5·1

  Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast-Geriatric Unit and Day Hospital

  2·5

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast-extension of cardiac surgery intensive care facilities

  1·7

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the five largest hospital building projects completed in Northern Ireland since 1979; and what is the cost of each.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Project

  Cost £ million

  Belfast City Hospital Tower Block

  61·0

  Daisy Hill Hospital, Newry-major extension

  6·1

  Altnagelvin Hospital, Londonderry-nucleus cluster II

  3·2

  Erne Hospital, Enniskillen-Geriatric Unit and Day Hospital

  3·1

  Altnagelvin Hospital, Londonderry-nucleus cluster I

  3·0

  Teachers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will establish a teaching council representative of teachers in Northern Ireland to work in partnership with Government on professional matters related to the teaching profession and the raising of educational standards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am satisfied that the current arrangements for matters such as the standards of qualifications and entry to the profession and responsibility for teachers' probation and recognition are working satisfactorily. There are no plans for changes of the type suggested by the hon. Member.
  337
  On the general issue of raising educational standards, I look forward to a continuing partnership with the teaching profession to achieve the objectives set out in the Education Reform (NI) Order 1989.

  Right to Fuel Campaign
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of the right to fuel campaign.

  Mr. Needham
  I do not have any immediate plans to meet representatives of the right to fuel campaign.

  Breath Testing
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many breath tests were carried out over the Christmas and new year periods in each of the last five years in Northern Ireland; and how many proved positive.

  Mr. Cope
  The table details the roadside evidential breath tests made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in each of the last five years during the Christmas and new year periods:

  Year

  Tested

  Positive

  1985

  70

  25

  1986

  89

  27

  1987

  34

  10

  1988

  49

  19

  1989

  105

  41

  Enterprise and Investment
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent initiatives he has announced designed to encourage enterprise and investment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government are firmly committed to the promotion of enterprise in Northern Ireland and this commitment is reflected in the wide range of enterprise activities of the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU), which is funded by the Government. The importance of the work which LEDU is doing is demonstrated by the substantial increase in resources which the Government are making available to LEDU in 1990–91. Examples of recent LEDU initiatives include stimulating and supporting innovatory technological projects with export potential and an enterprise awareness campaign.

  As regards investment, one of the primary objectives of the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland is to seek to attract investment from Great Britain and overseas. The IDB is concentrating its efforts on those sectors which are most likely to produce mobile investment projects whose requirements can be matched by the particular strengths and expertise which Northern Ireland offers. For example the IDB is seeking to attract service sector projects from the south-east of England because of the difficulties of recruiting and retaining staff which are intensified by the falling birth rate there. These difficulties do not apply in Northern Ireland where the numbers entering the labour market with good educational qualifications will increase during the 1990s.

  Tourism
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review the composition and membership of the Northern Ireland tourist board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The present members of the board were appointed for a three-year term ending on 30 June 1991. I will take the opportunity of such occasional vacancies as occur before then to ensure that the board has the range of skills and experience needed to implement the tourism strategy announced last year.

  EC Structural Funds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide an estimate of European Community structural funds available to Northern Ireland for 1990–91.

  Mr. Cope
  The scale and likely timing of structural funds assistance to Northern Ireland is set out in the Community support framework document, recently agreed with the Commission. This forecasts that for the EC budgetary year 1990—the nearest analogue to our own 1990–91 financial year—Northern Ireland's structural funds commitment will amount to 160 million ecu (about £110 million at today's exchange rate).

  "War Without Honour"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what study he has made of Captain Fred Holroyd's book "War Without Honour".

  Mr. Cope
  The Department and I are aware of the contents of the book.

  Electricity
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much electricity was produced by the Irish Republic for Northern Ireland in the last available 12-month period.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost so far of the Stevens inquiry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  Approximately £0·5 million up to the end of January.

  Harbour Development Scheme (Ardglass)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the required funds will be released for the harbour development scheme at Ardglass in South Down; and what is the estimated commencement date for the scheme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The results of the model study on proposed improvements to Ardglass harbour have indicated that a larger scheme than was originally envisaged would provide greater shelter within the harbour. A cost-benefit analysis for a larger scheme needs
  339
  to be completed to establish whether the much greater expenditure would be justified and, if it would, to support a bid for the additional grantaid in competition with other demands for Government funding. At this stage it is not possible to indicate a commencement date.

  Educational Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing in 1980–81 and for each of the school years from 1985–86, inclusive(a) the value of the educational maintenance allowance and (b) the means-test level, and the indexed real value of the allowance using (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1985–86 and (iii) 1989–90 as a base.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  School Year

  Maximum Allowance

  Means-test Levels

  Indexed Real Value

  £

  Lower£

  Upper£

  1980–81£

  1985–86£

  1989–90£

  Aged 16

  1980–81

  380

  1,670

  2,880

  380

  516

  630

  1985–86

  390

  2,485

  3,925

  287

  390

  477

  1986–87

  390

  2,485

  3,925

  279

  379

  436

  1987–88

  390

  2,485

  3,925

  268

  363

  444

  1988–89

  390

  2,485

  3,925

  253

  343

  420

  Board

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  11989–90

  Belfast

  226

  230

  109

  67

  35

  Western

  715

  575

  398

  171

  60

  North Eastern

  186

  179

  93

  65

  36

  South Eastern

  155

  130

  82

  51

  50

  Southern

  491

  389

  303

  192

  150

  1 Estimated.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the figures for the number of people in Northern Ireland who were convicted of offences in Northern Ireland when under the age of 20 years, and have been detained for more than 10 years and are still detained.

  Mr. Cope
  Thirty-five such prisoners have served periods of 10 years or more in prison and are still detained. Of these 11 are Secretary of State's pleasure cases and 21 are life sentence prisoners; the remaining three are serving determinate sentences.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received any representations on student loans in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since the publication of the White Paper "Top-Up Loans for Students" (Cm. 520) in November 1988 representations expressing a variety of views have been received from four Members of Parliament, two district councils, the Fair Employment Agency, local representatives of the National Union of Students and other student bodies. In addition, some 400 postcards were received during the course of a campaign mounted by student unions.
  340

  School Year

  Maximum Allowance

  Means-test Levels

  Indexed Real Value

  £

  Lower£

  Upper£

  1980–81£

  1985–86£

  1989–90£

  1989–90

  390

  2,485

  3,925

  235

  319

  390

  Aged 17

  1980–81

  430

  1,670

  3,140

  430

  542

  663

  1985–86

  475

  2,485

  4,165

  377

  475

  580

  1986–87

  475

  2,485

  4,165

  366

  461

  563

  1987–88

  475

  2,485

  4,165

  351

  443

  541

  1988–89

  475

  2,485

  4,165

  332

  418

  511

  1989–90

  475

  2,485

  4,165

  308

  389

  475

  Aged 18

  1980–81

  510

  1,670

  3,470

  510

  734

  897

  1985–86

  494

  2,485

  4,645

  343

  494

  604

  1986–87

  494

  2,484

  4,645

  333

  480

  586

  1987–88

  494

  2,485

  4,645

  320

  460

  563

  1988–89

  494

  2,485

  4,654

  302

  435

  532

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate the number of educational maintenance allowances paid in each board area in each school year from 1985–86, inclusive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Social Security
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount(a) spent, (b) estimated to be spent and (c) planned to be spent on social security in Northern Ireland in actual and at 1989 prices for each of the years 1978–79 to 1992–93; what was the cash and real terms percentage increase for each year; and what is his estimate of each year's increase accounted for by (i) an increase in the number of claimants and (ii) a real terms increase in benefit levels.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The total amounts of social security expenditure in Northern Ireland for the years in question are set out in the table:

  £ million (cash)

  Actual percentage increase annually

  £ millions (1989 prices)

  Real terms percentage increase annually

  1978–79

  494

  20·5

  1,162

  8·8

  1979–80

  590

  19·4

  1,189

  2·3

  1980–81

  717

  21·5

  1,221

  2·7

  1981–82

  865

  20·6

  1,341

  9·8

  1982–83

  995

  15·0

  1,439

  7·3

  1983–84

  1,084

  8·9

  1,498

  4·1

  1984–85

  1,190

  9·8

  1,566

  4·5

  1985–86

  1,298

  9·1

  1,621

  3·5

  1986–87

  1,412

  8·8

  1,706

  5·3

  1987–88

  1,492

  5·7

  1,712

  0·4

  1988–89

  1,556

  4·3

  1,665

  -2·8

  1989–90

  1,698

  9·1

  1,698

  2·0

  1990–91

  1,860

  9·5

  1,771

  4·3

  1991–92

  2,017

  8·4

  1,856

  4·8

  1992–93

  2,124

  5·3

  1,897

  2·2

  341

  The cash expenditure column shows amounts spent for the years 1978/79 to 1988/89, the latest available forecast for the current year 1989/90 and planned expenditure for 1990/91 onwards.

  The percentage increases in real terms mainly reflect the ever increasing number of beneficiaries. An accurate breakdown between this increase and the real terms increase in benefit levels is not readily available.

  Disabled People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the effect of the proposals contained in, "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" on claimants in Northern Ireland; and if he will estimate the number of people in Northern Ireland who will benefit from the proposed mobility component together with his estimate of the number who will benefit from the proposed care component.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: On the basis of the well-established principle of parity in social security provision between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, the new proposals affecting social security entitlement for the disabled and their carers will be introduced in Northern Ireland and on the same time scale as in the rest of the United Kingdom. In addition to those currently entitled to mobility allowance and attendance allowance in Northern Ireland, it is estimated that 4,000 people will benefit from the mobility components and 4,000 from the care components of the proposed disability allowance.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet representatives of the disabled in Northern Ireland to discuss the Government Paper, "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People", and if he has any plans to issue an equivalent document for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: As parity in social security provisions between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom remains Government policy, there are no plans to issue a further document for Northern Ireland. My noble Friend the Minister responsible for health and social services in Northern Ireland will be pleased to hear the views of representatives of the disabled in Northern Ireland on the new proposals.

  Hospital Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposals for the privatisation of hospital services upon the equality of opportunity between the two communities and between the sexes.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The health and social services boards are fully committed to the principle of equality of opportunity for all employees. Companies tendering for contracts in the health and personal social services are required to meet their statutory obligations under the fair employment and sex discrimination legislation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  One-parent Families
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was paid in benefit in 1989 to one-parent families in Britain; and what estimate he has as to the amount likely to be spent in 1990.

  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of support for one-parent families.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is set out in the table:

  Social security expenditure on lone parents

  £ million, Great Britain

  Cash prices£

  Real terms (in 1989–90 prices)£

  11988–89

  3,630

  3,884

  1989–90

  3,930

  3,930

  1990–91

  4,290

  4,086

  Notes:

  1 Revised figures for 1988–89 take account of amended estimates of Housing Benefit and Child Benefit expenditure.

  2 Benefits included are Child Benefit, One Parent Benefit, Income Support, Family Credit, Housing Benefit and Maternity Benefit.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what improvements have been made to benefits for single parents since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Improvements made to the benefit system for lone-parent families since 1979 are shown in table 1. Other improvements to the benefit system for families with children which have also helped lone-parent families are shown in table 2. These are in addition to increases of benefit in annual upratings.

  Table 1

  Improvements In Benefit System for Lone Parent Families Date and Change

  November 1980

  Supplementary Benefit. The £6 weekly flat rate disregard was replaced by a tapered earnings disregard up to a maximum of £12 (first £4 of earnings disregarded in full, and half of the amount of any earnings between £4 and £20 also disregarded.)

  April 1988

  Income Support. The new structure of personal allowances provided that all lone parents aged 18 or over received the full adult rate of Income Support. For single people without dependants this rate only available from age 25.

  Lone parent premium introduced; paid on top of the family premium from the outset of a claim for those lone parents who did not qualify for another type of premium.

  Earnings disregard increased from the £12 a week tapered disregard to a flat rate £15 a week.

  Family Credit. A much more generous scheme for all low-income families than the Family Income Supplement scheme.

  Lone parent families assessed at the same level as two-parent families.

  One Parent Benefit disregarded in calculating a claimant's income.

  Housing Benefit. General alignment of benefit rules with Income Support, with higher level of lone parent premium in Housing Benefit providing an incentive to move off Income Support.
  343
  Proposed Improvements

  October 1990

  Housing Benefit, Community Charge Benefit. For lone parents not on Income Support earnings disregard to be increased from £15 to £25 a week.

  Table 2

  Improvements in Benefit System for Families with Children

  which have also helped Lone Parent Families

  Date and Change

  November 1979

  Supplementary Benefit. Introduction of age-related heating addition for children under 5 years of age.

  November 1980

  Supplementary Benefit. Reduction of qualifying period for long-term scale rate from 2 years to 1 year.

  July 1982

  Maternity Grant. The £25 Maternity Grant made non-contributory.

  November 1985

  Family Income Supplement. Age-related rates for children introduced.

  April 1987

  Maternity Benefits. Introduction of Statutory Maternity Pay paid by employer.

  More recent contribution test for Maternity Allowance for women not entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay.

  Greater choice for women as to when to give up work in pregnancy without affecting title to either Statutory Maternity Pay or Maternity Allowance.

  April 1988

  General. Social Security reforms improved the position for those wanting to work.

  For the first time the income-related benefits aligned so that entitlement to Income Support, Housing Benefit and Family Credit assessed using the same basic rules.

  By assessing Familt Credit and Housing Benefit on net rather than gross income the worst effects of the poverty trap eliminated.

  Income Support. Family premium introduced to help families bringing up children.

  Value of interest in former home disregarded for 26 weeks following estrangement or divorce.

  Housing Benefit. Start point for Housing Benefit became 100 per cent. of eligible rent and 80 per cent. of eligible rates.

  April 1989

  Income Support, Family Credit, Housing Benefit. Children's rates enhanced by 50p over and above amount needed to maintain their real value.

  Proposed Improvements

  April 1990

  Income Support, Housing Benefit, Community Charge Benefit. Extra 50p to be added to the family premium over and above the amount needed to maintain real value.Family Credit. Adult credit to be increased by £1 over and above the amount needed to maintain real value.

  Disablement Benefit Claims
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims or requests for review of disablement benefit are held up at his Birkenhead offices awaiting guidance on Cl/156/88.

  Mr. Scott
  A total of 1,069 new claims and 832 review
  applications have been received to date by the two social security offices serving the Birkenhead area following the
  decision of the commissioners Cl/156/88. These are now being processed.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date the Commissioners' decision Cl/ 156/ 88 concerning vibration white finger claims was issued.

  Mr. Scott
  Commissioners' decision Cl/156/88 was issued on 1 September 1989.
  344
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his offices in the north-western region will start to take Cl/156/88 into account in making their decisions.

  Mr. Scott
  Claims affected by and taking account of commissioners' decision Cl/156/88 began to be processed from 19 January 1990 in all local offices.

  Attendance Allowance
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details for the latest available date of how long it takes to process attendance allowance applications from the date of claim to the issuing of a decision.

  Mr. Scott
  At 31 December 1989 the average time taken to decide an attendance allowance claim was about seven to eight weeks.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security from what budget the costs of the new entitlements from April 1991 to income support and housing benefit for residents of independent nursing homes or residential care homes will come.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Existing arrangements for all income support and housing benefits expenditure will continue.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out how the new responsibilities for administration and payment of housing benefit will operate for local authority-sponsored residents who are placed in residential care homes or nursing homes outside the placing authority's boundaries.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are consulting the local authority associations on these and other issues.

  Income Support
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how, from 31 March 1991, an increase in the weekly charge for independent nursing home or residential care home fees will affect the benefit entitlement of an income support claimant with preserved rights(a) if the claimant is already receiving the maximum permitted under the ceiling for that category of care and (b) if the amount the claimant is receiving towards the care element is below the ceiling payment for that category;

  (2) on what basis the ceiling payments for care support in respect of income support claimants in residential accommodation with preserved rights from 31 March 1991 will be increased;

  (3) how the preserved rate of income support will be calculated for residents in residential care homes or nursing homes on 31 March 1991.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government intend to preserve the present scheme of special income support limits for existing claimants who are resident in most homes when the new funding structure is introduced on 1 April 1991. As now, under those arrangements there will be limits to the level of benefit available for different types of care; those whose fees are at or below the limit will have their charges met in full. Existing arrangements for reviewing the level of the limits will continue.
  345
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the value of income support in 1990 for(a) a single person aged under 25 years, (b) a single person aged over 25 years, (c) a lone parent over 18 years with a child under 11 years, (d) a couple over 18 years with two children under 11 years and (e) a pensioner as a percentage of estimated (i) average net male earnings and (ii) average net male manual earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Estimates cannot be provided for 1990–91 until the earnings figures for April 1990 are known.

  Hostel Accommodation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations have been received from organisations that provide hostel accommodation about the financial difficulties they are experiencing as a result of the changes in income support introduced in April 1989; and if he will list the nature and extent of the problems that are being experienced.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Changes to income support for hostel dwellers were introduced from 9 October 1989. Since that date we have received a small number of representations about financial difficulties resulting from the change. Most problems appear to have been caused by initial difficulties with the administration of housing benefit. Latest indications are that those problems have now been largely resolved satisfactorily.

  Warwickshire Welfare Rights Service
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 21 December 1989 referring to Warwickshire welfare rights service.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My noble Friend Lord Henley replied to my hon. Friend's letter today.

  Homeworkers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to allow exemption certificates to be backdated for homeworkers if they opt to pay the self-employed contribution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Those homeworkers who are self-employed can apply in the normal way for a certificate of exception from liability to pay class 2 contributions; if appropriate, the certificate can be backdated for a maximum of 13 weeks. There are no plans to extend these backdating provisions for any group of workers.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of invalid care allowance in the Dewsbury constituency.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children are receiving child benefit, broken down into(a) England, Scotland and Wales and (b) the English regions and the cost of paying child benefit in each case.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information as set out in the table is for December 1988. I regret that separate figures for the English regions are not available.

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Number of children

  10,253,000

  1,094,000

  623,000

  Estimated annual amount of child benefit expenditure

  £3,851·0m

  £410·9m

  £234·0m

  "Households Below Average Income 1987"
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the next set of "Households Below Average Income 1987".

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We expect to publish the next edition of "Households Below Average Income" in the next few weeks.

  Student Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish any draft regulations concerning students' entitlement to social security benefits; which bodies he intends to consult regarding any such changes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" outlined proposals for removing entitlement to social security benefits from the majority of full-time students. Draft regulations to give effect to these proposals will be published shortly. They will be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee in the usual way, and will also be subject to consultation with the local authority associations.

  Disability Allowance
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people who will be eligible for the proposed disability allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 19 January at columns 482–83.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the administrative cost incurred per £100 paid in benefit for(a) national insurance retirement benefit, (b) income support, (c) the social fund and (d) housing benefit for the latest available year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 22 January 1990]: Details of the costs of administering social security benefits are published in the public expenditure White Paper. The following information for 1987–88 has been extracted from the latest edition (Cm. 1014) published on 30 January 1990:

  347

  (a) national insurance retirement benefit—administrative cost £1·37 per £100 benefit paid

  (b) housing benefit—administrative cost £4·30 per £100 benefit paid.

  Income support was introduced in April 1988 and figures for administration costs are not yet available. The social fund was introduced in a limited way in 1987–88 for funeral and maternity payments only but no separate figures are available—the cost for 1987–88 is included in the overall supplementary benefit administrative costs for that year.

  Table one Number of working families with children at various income levels: Great Britain 1986

  Thousands

  Gross weekly income exclusing state benefits£

  Total

  One parent families

  Two parent families

  One wage families

  Two wage families

  Number of dependent children

  1

  2

  3

  4 or more

  Under 80

  150

  20

  130

  150

  10

  60

  50

  30

  10

  80–89

  70

  10

  60

  70

  1

  20

  30

  20

  2—

  90–99

  100

  10

  90

  80

  20

  40

  30

  10

  10

  100–109

  110

  20

  90

  90

  20

  50

  40

  10

  2—

  110–119

  90

  20

  70

  70

  20

  60

  20

  10

  10

  120–129

  140

  20

  120

  120

  20

  60

  60

  20

  10

  130–139

  120

  20

  100

  80

  30

  60

  40

  20

  1—

  140–149

  130

  10

  120

  80

  50

  60

  40

  20

  10

  150–159

  160

  10

  150

  100

  60

  80

  70

  10

  2—

  160–169

  160

  10

  160

  110

  60

  90

  60

  10

  2—

  170–179

  190

  10

  180

  110

  80

  70

  90

  30

  10

  180–189

  220

  20

  210

  120

  110

  80

  110

  30

  2—

  190–199

  210

  10

  200

  110

  100

  90

  90

  20

  10

  200–219

  380

  10

  370

  160

  220

  180

  140

  50

  10

  220–239

  390

  10

  380

  150

  240

  160

  170

  50

  10

  240–259

  390

  10

  380

  140

  260

  150

  170

  60

  10

  260–279

  330

  2—

  330

  110

  220

  140

  130

  50

  10

  280–299

  300

  10

  290

  100

  200

  140

  120

  30

  10

  300 and over

  1,690

  20

  1,670

  480

  1,210

  660

  810

  190

  40

  Total

  5,330

  230

  5,100

  2,410

  2,920

  2,240

  2,280

  650

  150

  1—Nil.

  2—Less than 5,000.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are derived from the 1986 Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling error. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 and so rows and columns may not sum exactly to the totals shown.

  2. Gross weekly income is the income reported in 1986 without any updating.

  3. A "working family" is defined as one where at least one parent is in full-time (30 hours or more) employment or self employment.

  4. The figures exclude any families not living in private households.

  5. A "two wage family" is one where the second wage exceeds £4 a week.

  Table Two Number of non-working families of working age with children at various income levels: Great Britain 1986

  Thousands

  Gross weekly income including state benefits

  Under£50

  £50 to£59

  £60 to£69

  £70 to£79

  £80 to£89

  £90 to£99

  £100 to£109

  £110 to£119

  £120 to£129

  £130 to£139

  £140 to£149

  £150 and over

  Total

  Total

  100

  40

  100

  200

  230

  170

  170

  130

  60

  60

  20

  190

  1,460

  One parent families

  80

  30

  90

  150

  90

  90

  80

  60

  30

  20

  10

  40

  760

  Two parent families

  20

  10

  10

  60

  130

  80

  90

  70

  30

  40

  20

  150

  700

  Number of dependent children:

  One

  70

  30

  80

  130

  140

  50

  40

  20

  20

  10

  10

  40

  630

  Two

  20

  *

  20

  60

  70

  90

  60

  50

  10

  20

  10

  90

  520

  Three

  10

  10

  o

  10

  20

  30

  50

  30

  10

  10

  10

  20

  200

  Four or more

  —

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  10

  20

  20

  20

  10

  30

  110

  National Insurance benefits being received:

  Families (Income Levels)
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the information contained in the letter to the rt hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham dated 8 January, showing the estimated numbers of working and out-of-work families with children at different income levels in 1986.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is shown in the tables. For statistical reasons, detailed information of this kind should be treated as free-standing annual analyses and not as a time series.
  349

  Gross weekly income including state benefits

  Under£50

  £50 to£59

  £60 to£69

  £70 to£79

  £80 to£89

  £90 to£99

  £100 to£109

  £110 to£119

  £120 to£129

  £130 to£139

  £140 to£149

  £150 and over

  Total

  None (a)

  40

  10

  10

  10

  20

  20

  30

  20

  20

  10

  *

  100

  290

  (b)

  50

  20

  90

  160

  170

  130

  110

  70

  20

  30

  20

  20

  890

  UB (a)

  *

  *

  10

  10

  10

  *

  10

  10

  —

  —

  *

  10

  60

  (b)

  —

  —

  —

  10

  10

  20

  10

  10

  10

  10

  —

  10

  70

  SB/SSP (a)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  (b)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  —

  —

  *

  IVB (a)

  *

  —

  —

  10

  10

  *

  10

  *

  10

  10

  —

  30

  80

  (b)

  —

  —

  —

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  20

  Other (a)

  —

  10

  —

  10

  10

  *

  *

  10

  —

  —

  —

  10

  50

  (b)

  —

  *

  10

  —

  *

  —

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  (a) without supplementary benefit.

  (b) with supplementary benefit.

  — nil.

  * less than 5000.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are derived from the 1986 Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling error.

  All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 and so rows and columns may not sum exactly to the totals shown.

  2. The totals do not coincide exactly with other published statistics. This is due to the different data sources.

  3. Income is gross of taxes and national insurance and is the income reported in 1986 without updating.

  4. A "non-working family" is defined as one where neither parent is in full-time employment or self employment.

  5. The figures exclude any families not living in private households.

  6. "Other" National Insurance benefits include industrial disablement and widows benefit.

  Table 3 Non-working families of working age with children not in receipt of supplementary benefit (Great Britain 1986)

  Gross weekly income including state benefits

  Not entitled to suplementary benefit

  Entitled but not claiming supplementary benefit

  Total

  Under 50

  1

  50

  50

  50–59

  10

  10

  20

  60–69

  10

  10

  10

  70–79

  30

  10

  30

  80–89

  30

  20

  40

  90–99

  30

  —

  30

  100–109

  50

  1

  50

  110–119

  40

  1

  40

  120–129

  30

  1

  30

  130–139

  20

  —

  20

  140–149

  10

  —

  10

  150 and over

  140

  10

  150

  Total

  360

  110

  470

  Less than 5,000.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are derived from the 1986 Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling error. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 and so rows and columns may not sum exactly to the total shown.

  2. Income is gross of taxes and national insurance and is the income reported in 1986 without updating.

  3. A "non-working family" is defined as one where neither partner is in full-time employment or self employment.

  4. The figures exclude any families not living in private households.

  5. Inferences cannot be drawn from the number of non-working families with children entitled but not claiming supplementary benefit about the take-up of supplementary benefit.

HEALTH

  Product Licences
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there have been any changes in the data required for the granting of an abridged product licence since 350
  January 1987; and whether there has been any change in the interpretation of the existing regulations governing the granting of an abridged product licence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since January 1987 there have been changes in the data required from applicants in support of an abridged product licence application. This is as a result of directive 87/21/EEC which amended directive 65/65/EEC and new guidelines issued by the EC Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products entitled "Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Community", a copy of which is in the Library. Medical, pharmaceutical and other scientific interpretation of existing regulations was adapted to reflect the revised EC requirements.

  AIDS
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many potential cases of HIV-2 virus have so far been tested as part of the screening process.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The communicable disease surveillance centre is aware of nine HIV-2 positive reports in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 18 January,Official Report, column 405, to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, what information his Department has on the employment prospects, insurance and mortgage status of people who acquired AIDS from blood transfusions under the National Health Service; and whether the ex gratia payment of £20,000 to people with haemophilia who contracted the virus will be paid in each case of infection if more than one member of a family is infected.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 31 January 1990]: The Government's decision to make ex gratia grants to people with haemophilia who are also infected with the AIDS virus was a recognition of their unique position. I refer the right hon. Member to the reply my

  351
  right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 23 November 1989 at columns 11–12. A £20,000 lump sum payment will be made to each haemophiliac infected with HIV. In co-operation with the trustees of the MacFarlane Trust a new discretionary trust has been set up and is now making payments.

  Friedrich's Ataxia
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if any departmental funding of research is provided into the disease Friedrich's Ataxia.

  Mr. Freeman
  Research related to Friedrich's Ataxia is currently being supported by the Medical Research Council and in 1988–89 the total cost of research projects which were relevant to Friedrich's Ataxia amounted to £197,000. The Medical Research Council is always willing to consider further soundly based proposals for research funding in competition with other applications. The MRC, which receives grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science, is the main Government agency for the promotion of biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. The Department of Health is not currently funding any research on this subject.

  Patients (Information and Records)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outcome of his Department's consultation on the draft code of practice on "Communicating information to patients and their access to their own manual health records"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following consultation with the medical profession, it was accepted that a draft code of practice on "Communicating information to patients and their access to their own manual health records" could be used as the basis for a wide consultation exercise, although there was no formal approval of or agreement to it.

  The draft code was circulated on 23 May 1989 to a wide range of health professional and patient interests bodies and to health authority management. Twenty-five copies of the consultation papers were issued. Some recipients incorporated within their responses comments received from their constituent members. Others copied the document to other interested parties who responded on their own account. Overall, 52 separate responses were received.

  From five of the six responses received from bodies representing the medical profession, it is clear that the majority of the profession remains firmly opposed in principle to patients having a right of access to their own health records. It believes that it would be harmful to patients, would result in less comprehensive records, would seriously affect the trust between doctor and patient and would divert resources from patient care. These views are held particularly strongly by the JCC and the GMC. The GMSC's reply to the consultation drew our attention to the conference of local medical committees resolution passed in 1988
  "That this conference rejects the principle of open access to their records by patients".
  The sixth respondent body regarded the principles as acceptable, on the assumption that doctors could keep separate personal notes, whilst recognising that the
  352
  character of medical record-keeping would be affected. One individual doctor also expressed his opposition to the principle.

  Of the other 45 respondents, some of whom offered detailed comments including reservations about resource implications, the need to secure co-operation by doctors, procedural difficulties, training requirements and the need for time to allow for administrative and organisational changes, not one has taken a stance against the principle of access to manual records by or on behalf of patients.

  The Campaign for Freedom of Information doubts whether the medical profession would effectively implement access to medical records on a non-statutory basis. It takes as evidence of the profession's deep-seated resistance to access the fact that it has taken two years to produce even minimum proposals. The Campaign for Freedom of Information has therefore produced a draft Bill aimed at securing statutory rights of patients' access. It has subsequently been adopted as a private Member's Bill by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). Twelve other respondents share the Campaign for Freedom of Information's view that anything short of legislation will be inadequate and that access can only be assured only by statutory provision. A number of these as well as some hospital and Health Service organisations have given their public endorsement to the Campaign for Freedom of Information's draft Bill.

  The concerns of the medical profession—that greater access by patients to their records will affect the quality of medical record-keeping to the ultimate disadvantage of both patient and doctor—were brought to the attention of non-medical parties to the consultation exercise. Nevertheless, there is a clear balance of opinion in support of a right of access.

  Registration Service
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any proposals on the future of the registration service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Vote Office a copy of the White Paper he has published on the future of the registration service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes, the White Paper entitled "Registration: proposals for change", Cm 939, makes recommendations for reforming the system for registering births, marriages and deaths in England and Wales on lines already canvassed in a Green Paper and widely welcomed in consultation.

  The White Paper proposes a clear management structure for the registration service, under which its day-to-day running will be squarely in local authority hands while the Registrar General retains responsibility for setting national standards of performance. An end will be made to the legal restrictions on the duties of registrars which at present lessen its cost-effectiveness and the quality of service it can offer to the public. Alongside these structural changes there are proposals which will allow people to marry in any registration district in England and Wales and offer a new choice over the buildings in which civil marriages may take place. The standard period of notice which must be given for a marriage will come down

  353
  from 21 days to 15, but a notice which is given longer in advance will remain valid for six months, rather than three as at present.

  There will also be changes in all registration procedures to improve the statistical information which is then obtained. Still birth registrations will be aligned more closely with the procedures for registering deaths, in accordance with the wishes of the parents concerned. A new system will be introduced for notifying deaths which will save informants having always to travel to the district where the death took place in order to register it. There will be short certificates available for death or still birth, alongside the existing short birth certificate. And there will be an extension of the arrangements whereby Welsh speakers can obtain bilingual certificates of birth and death, so that these are no longer confined to events taking place in Wales.

  Finally, the White Paper proposes a distinction between historic registration records—those at least 75 years old—and more recent ones. Although access to all records will be maintained through a right to buy non-official copies of them, there will be new rules governing the purchase of certified copies of recent records for use for official purposes. These will help to curb an abuse which has arisen. By contrast, it is intended that information from the older registration records will be entirely within the public domain. It will be possible to buy either certified or non-official copies of certificates of events which occurred 75 years ago or longer, and it is also proposed that an agency outside the Government should hold copies of these records and provide the browsing facilities which are sought by genealogists, researchers and historians.

  Response to the earlier Green Paper shows there will be a widespread welcome for the White Paper proposals. They will modernise and improve the registration service by giving it a new flexibility to respond to public wishes, while at the same time so improving its efficiency as to secure a reduction in its net cost locally and centrally. Nearly all of the changes envisaged will require legislation for their implementation, and the Government hope to introduce this at an early date. Meanwhile, I commend them most strongly to the House.

  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 15 January to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central,Official Report, column 86, how many visits were undertaken by regional medical officers each year since 1984 and in which National Health Service regions; what was his basis for the estimate of saving per practice; whether the PACT data for the 2,800 practices referred to confirm those savings; and what was the expenditure per patient on practice lists of the 2,800 practices referred to in each year since 1984.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of visits by region to high-cost practices undertaken by regional medical officers is given in my reply to the hon. Member on 16 January, at columns 197–98. The estimates of savings per practice following a visit to a high-cost practice are based on a comparison of practice prescribing costs before and after the visit using PACT data. Information on the cost per patient for the practices mentioned since 1984 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  "Caring for People"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will present the information in chart 6 entitled: Estimated cumulative rate of transfer of DSS Care Expenditure in the White Paper, "Caring for People" (Cm. 849) in the form of a table.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The White Paper "Caring for People", Cm. 849, made it clear that the information illustrated in chart 6 was to be kept under review as more detailed information became available. We are currently considering relevant evidence. I will write to the hon. Member when the review has been completed.

  Audiology (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what basis decisions are made and resources allocated to reduce waiting lists for audiology and related specialisms;

  (2) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside of 25 January, Official Report, column 857, whether he has considered collecting waiting list figures for audiology and related services at a national level to assist in determining the use of resources to reduce those waiting lists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In-patient waiting list figures for the specialties of audiological medicine and ear, nose and throat are collected centrally. At 31 March 1989 there were no patients waiting for either in-patient or day case treatment in audiological medicine. We do not collect centrally figures on out-patient waiting lists but health authorities will have these locally as part of their management of local services.

  Decisions on the use of resources to reduce waiting lists in particular specialties are for regional and special health authorities to take in the light of local circumstances. Resources available to them include their allocation from the waiting list fund to help tackle the problem of long waits for hospital treatment. Since 1987 regions have used nearly £5·5 million from the fund to treat additional patients in the ear, nose and throat specialty.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether moneys will continue to be transferred to local authorities from the social security budget after 1995–96.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There will be a single formal transfer of provision from DSS to local authorities in the 1990 public expenditure survey, covering the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94. Provision for both social security and local authorities in subsequent surveys will be determined in the light of the declining number of cases with preserved entitlement under social security rules and the rising demand for local authority services, including demographic changes.

  Local Authority-Sponsored Residents
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the placing authority for local authority-sponsored residents placed outside its own boundaries will be responsible for meeting the full costs of the placement by making a payment direct to the establishment; whether
  355
  the placing authority or the authority where the establishment is based will be responsible for the calculation and payment of the housing benefit; and if housing benefit paid by the authority where the home is based will be paid direct to the placing authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As the White Paper "Caring for People" indicates, the local social services authority which arranges residential or nursing home care will be responsible for meeting the fees agreed with the home, whether this is within its area or not. Housing benefit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but I understand this will be claimed, as now, from the local housing authority in whose area the home is situated. Precise details of the way income support and housing benefit will be paid are still under consideration.

  Pharmaceutical Sales
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the actual average pharmaceutical company return on capital on sales to the National Health Service under the pharmaceutical price regulations scheme in respect of the years 1981 to 1988;

  (2) what was the average allowable target return on capital on sales to the National Health Service in respect of pharmaceutical companies operating within the pharmaceutical price regulations scheme for each year 1979 to 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Resource Management Initiative
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the results of his Department's evaluation of the resource management initiative.

  Mr. Freeman
  The joint evaluation of the resource management initiative six pilot schemes has not been concluded by the Department and the joint consultants committee. The Department is also funding an independent evaluation of the resource management initiative by the health economics research group, Brunel university. Its interim report was published on 18 July 1989. In addition, the Department helped to defray the cost of disseminating the central consultants and specialists committee evaluation of the initiative's six pilot sites. This report was published in October 1989. Copies of both these reports are being placed in the Library.

  Creutzfeldt Jakob Dementia
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is now taking to monitor the incidence of Creutzfeldt Jakob dementia.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 10 January at column 665 and to my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 31 January.

  Hospital Deaths
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will undertake an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of six patients 356
  transferred from Sefton general hospital to Mossley Hill hospital between December 1989 and January 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Liverpool health authority has already inquired into this and is satisfied that there is nothing to link the deaths of these patients with their transfer from Sefton general hospital to Mossley Hill hospital. These moves were carried out under proper medical supervision and were part of the health authority's carefully planned strategy for rationalisation of geriatric services in the district.

  Live Births
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest information he has on live births and survival at low gestational age, and on live births with estimated gestation of less than 28 weeks, in England and Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available; information on gestation is not collected at live birth registration.

  Abortion (London Hospitals)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the following hospitals and clinics in London are licensed to carry out abortions(a) Humana hospital, (b) Cromwell hospital, (c) Hallam medical centre, (d) IVF centre,100–146 Harley street and (e) Churchill clinic.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Of the hospitals and clinics listed only the Humana hospital is licensed under the Abortion Act 1967.

  NHS Treatment
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the latest figures available on the costs to the National Health Service of(a) dental care, (b) treating strokes, (c) treating heart disease and (d) treating cancer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]: The cost to the NHS of dental care provided by general dental practitioners in England was £674·1 million in 1988–89. This figure includes £14·8 million administration expenditure by the Dental Estimates Board. I regret that information on the precise costs to the National Health Service of treating strokes, heart disease and cancer is not available. However the Department has estimated that the costs in England in 1988–89 were of the order of:

  £ million

  Strokes (Cerebrovascular disease)

  650

  Heart disease (including chronic rheumatic, ischaemic and other forms of heart disease

  900

  Cancer

  1,000

  Notes:

  1.Estimates include in-patient, out-patient and primary care costs.

  2.Estimates derived from costing and activity data from various sources.

  Northern Health Region
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis £7,054,000 was deducted from the 1990–91 allocation to the Northern health region; if he will place
  357
  copies of the information that supports the deduction in the Library; and to which other English National Health Service regions sums equivalent to that amount were given.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: From 1990–91, regional health authorities' allocations reflect the amount of money available for services for their resident populations. From that allocation they must pay for services used by their residents in other regions: they will also receive income for providing services to residents of other regions. For 1990–91, these payments will be made through central adjustments to cash limits. For Northern RHA this means a net deduction of £7,054,000. This is the sum of Northern RHA's net flows with all the other English regions. The amounts in question were agreed between the regions concerned.

  The information on cross-boundary flows to support these adjustments will be included in the 1990–91 cash limits exposition booklet, which will be issued shortly. A copy will be placed in the Library as requested.

  Subject to legislation, cross-boundary flows, like other health services, will in future be paid for by contracts between a patient's district health authority or general practitioner and the place of treatment.

  Mr Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the £1,361,000 credited to the Northern health region in respect of cross-boundary flows from Scotland and Wales was deducted from National Health Service spending in Scotland and Wales; and where he proposes to record all such deductions or contributions in the public accounts.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 30 January 1990]: Historically, there have not been transfers of funds across borders in respect of flows of patients between the home countries. In 1990–91, the Northern regional health authority will be compensated for treating patients from Scotland and Wales by means of a sum top-sliced from English Health Service revenue funds. Subject to legislation, contracting for health services will be introduced from the financial year 1991–92; from that stage Scottish health boards and Welsh district health authorities will be able to place contracts with English hospitals and English authorities will have similar freedom to place cross-border contracts. The treatment in the statutory accounts of funds crossing national borders under the terms of such contracts has yet to be decided.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has carried out into the connection between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt Jakob disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer to the reply given on 31 January to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has initiated any prosecutions in respect of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle identified at markets and slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.
  358
  Mr. Maclean
  Prosecutions will be taken where there is evidence of deliberate attempts to evade the legal requirement to notify the Ministry of suspected cases of BSE. So far no such cases have arisen.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has recently introduced a greater level of inspection of bovines at markets and slaughterhouses to detect bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  In November 1989, official veterinarians began random ante mortem inspections of cattle submitted for slaughter at non-EC approved abattoirs. Ministry vets carry out regular monitoring at markets.

  Enzymes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what form of words he deems acceptable for labelling meat where gels containing enzymes have been used as binding agents; and if he will make a further statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is very little I can add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 17 January 1990, at column 217. All food is required to be labelled so as to give an indication of its true nature and where necessary its physical condition or treatment to ensure consumers are not misled. It is for the food manufacturer to decide how he complies with the law; it would be inappropriate for me to suggest forms of labelling for specific products such as this.

  Cattle Offals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what uses are still permitted for those cattle offals now banned for use for human consumption.

  Mr. Maclean
  Bovine offal which has been banned from human consumption is normally removed at the slaughterhouse, or, in the case of bovine brain, at a specialist boning plant.

  If the material is sterilised, it is subject to the general prohibition on its use for human consumption. If not sterilised, it may be moved only under a local authority movement permit and must either be stained and taken to a rendering plant or licensed waste food processor or, if unstained, may be used only in the production of non-food products such as strings for musical instruments or sports equipment, in medical, veterinary or other research premises or in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products.

  Special guidelines on the use of bovine material were circulated to the pharmaceutical industry in March 1989.

  The feeding of ruminant-based protein to ruminants is prohibited by the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Order 1988 as amended.

  Black Pudding
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about restrictions imposed on black pudding makers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My officials met representatives of the Natural Sausage Casings Association on 12 January to
  359
  discuss the consequences of the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989. There was a useful discussion of the background to, and the effects of, these regulations.

  Veterinary Investigation Centres
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the veterinary investigation centres he intends to close and the dates when the closure is due; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The review of the veterinary investigation service commissioned by the Minister is now being finalised and the report will shortly be submitted to Ministers. As yet, no decisions have been made on any recommendations that might arise from this review.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many persons are employed at the veterinary investigation centre at(a) Aberystwyth, (b) Bangor and (c) Carmarthen.

  Mr. Maclean
  As of 1 January 1990, the total veterinary scientific and laboratory support staff employed at the veterinary investigation centre at(a) Aberystwyth was 11, (b) Bangor was 10 and (c) Carmarthen was 15.

  Food Quality
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will commission a national survey into the quality of food supplied by wholesalers to local authority schools and elderly persons' homes; and if he will publish the results;

  (2) what action he proposes to take in response to the results of the recent survey undertaken by trading standards officers in Yorkshire and Humberside on food supplied by wholesalers to local authority schools and elderly persons' homes.

  Mr. Maclean
  I too was disturbed to read the results of this survey by trading standards officers. There are, however, already powers in the Food Act 1984 which make it an offence to sell food which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and trading standards officers are very familiar with the operation of this law. The Food Safety Bill currently before Parliament continues these powers.

  It is of course for any local authority to ensure that foodstuffs supplied to its establishments meet the terms of its purchase contract and to take appropriate civil or criminal action if there should be any failure to supply the quality demanded. In the circumstances, the local authorities concerned already therefore have adequate powers to deal with the matter and I see no cause for me to intervene.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to increase the sanctions available to trading standards officers investigating the supply of unfit food.

  Mr. Maclean
  The application of sanctions against those who supply unfit food is of course a matter for the courts. However, the Food Safety Bill is substantially increasing the statutory penalties for contraventions of this kind.

  Miss Sarah Furnival
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 11 December 1989 referring to Miss Sarah Furnival.

  Mr. Gummer
  A reply to the hon. Member's letter dated 11 December 1989 referring to Miss Sarah Furnival was dispatched on 30 January 1990.

  Organic Fanning
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to implement the European Commission's regulations concerning standards for organic farming.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Commission proposal for a regulation on organic foodstuffs is currently under discussion in a Council working group and much detailed work remains to be done before it is ready for consideration by the EEC Council of Agriculture Ministers. If adopted by the Council in the form of a regulation, it will be directly applicable in all member states. The proposals provide for the designation of an authority to implement certain measures. I have already indicated that the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards would, in this country, be the designated authority.

  Calves' Brains
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to introduce measures to restrict the use of calves' brains for human consumption.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to restrict the use of brains from calves aged under six months beyond the controls contained in the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he anticipates announcing the outcome of the hill farming review and the hill livestock compensatory allowances to be paid in 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 30 January 1990, at column 159–70.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 16 January,Official Report, column 220, he will give the dates when each of the active ingredients first received approval; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  Active Ingredient

  First Approved

  Aldicarb

  1973

  Aldrin

  1956

  Aminotriazole

  1961

  361

  Active Ingredient

  First Approved

  Binapacryl

  1962

  Biological agents used as pesticides;

  Bacillus Thuringiensis

  1967

  Trichoderma viride

  1979

  Verticillium lecanii

  1980

  Bitertanol

  1982

  Captafol

  1965

  Chlordane

  1962

  Cyhexatin

  1970

  Daminozide

  1967

  DDT

  1944

  Dieldrin

  1956

  Dimethoate

  1958

  Dinoseb

  1961

  Dinoseb-acetate

  1965

  Dinoterb

  1972

  DNOC

  1960

  Endrin

  1984

  Ethylene dibromide

  1961

  Fenbutatin oxide

  1983

  Fentin acetate

  1965

  Fentin hydroxide

  1964

  Iprodione

  1976

  Maleic hydrazide

  1960

  Mercury compounds:

  Phenyl Mercury Acetate

  1959

  Mercuric oxide

  1968

  Mercurous chloride

  1965

  Ethyl Mercury Phosphate

  1956

  2-Methoxyethyl Mercury Acetate

  1971

  Sulphonyl Ureas:

  362

  Active Ingredient

  First Approved

  Chlorsulfuron

  1981

  Metsulfuron-Methyl

  1984

  Synthetic Pyrethroids

  1970–1980

  Triazophos

  1972

  2, 4, 5-T

  1965

  Glycol ethers, which appeared under "Use continues unchanged" in my answer of 16 January to the hon. Member for South Shields, at column 220, is in fact a solvent and not an active ingredient. It has been in use for a number of years and was last reviewed in 1983.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 11 January,Official Report, columns 748–49, how many new active ingredients in 1986 were (a) received, (b) approved and (c) rejected prior to 6 October 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: The information set out relates to new pesticide active ingredients for which my Department has responsibility:

  Numbers

  (a) Applications received before 6 October 1986

  28

  (b) Approvals (full/provisional/experimental permit) granted before 6 October 1986

  9

  (c) Applications rejected before 6 October 1986

  3

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock:The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Social Security Spending
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
How spending on social security has increased during the last decade.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, spending on social security has increased from £16.4 billion in 1978–79 to £52.6 billion in 1989–90, a real terms increase of 36 per cent. The estimated expenditure for 1990–91 is £55.6 billion.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that admirable reply. However, can he indicate by how much expenditure on social security benefit is estimated to rise over the next three years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, expenditure is estimated to rise by an average of 4 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. Moreover, by 1992–93 the expenditure will be over £63 billion.
Lord Stallard:My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what proportion of that increase in spending results from an increase in the number of claimants, and what proportion results from an actual increase in benefits, taking into account the rate of inflation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord such figures without notice. Obviously I would accept that a great deal of the increase is the result of an increase in the number of claimants. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. It indicates that we are reaching a great many people who were not reached before. Perhaps I may give an example. Invalid care allowance over the 10 years has gone up by some 2,000 per cent. That is because we have extended the benefit to married women —something the noble Lord's party did not do.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps it may help the Minister to know that 90 per cent. of the increase is due to an increase in the number of claimants and 10 per cent. is due to an increase in the real level of benefit. However, in view of the figures which he has given, can he comment on the Church of England report Living Faith in the City,issued this week, which concludes that changes in taxation and social security have greatly widened the gap between the rich and the poor, leaving at least some people materially worse off and thereby increasingly dependent upon private charity? According to the
412
report a considerable number of poor people now actually have less in their pockets to spend than they had in 1985. Do the Government agree with the conclusions of the report?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords; I do not intend to comment upon the Church of England report. However, returning to the noble Lord's first point that 90 per cent. is attributable to an increase in the number of claimants, that may be true in respect of some benefits. I do not accept that it is so globally. Moreover, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, it is no bad thing if we are reaching more claimants. Indeed, I have already had this conversation with the noble Lord on the issue of the long-term sick and disabled. I repeat: it is a good thing if we are reaching more people than the noble Lord's party did.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that during the decade in question the relationship between the state retirement pension and average earnings has consistently worsened and that it is now at the lowest level it has ever been? When do the Government intend to restore the relationship to what it was in 1979?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as we have already said, we shall continue to increase the retirement pension in line with the retail prices index. However, we shall also look at the average total income of pensioners which has increased by some 23 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. In addition to that —and I am talking now purely about government spending, not total average income—spending on the elderly as a group has increased by some 24 per cent.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister told the House that there has been a marked increase in real terms. However, is not the difference referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, due to the fact that the average wage has increased because the country has become so much more prosperous over the past 10 years?
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is absolutely correct. As I said, we intend to continue to increase state pensions in line with the retail prices index.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the 23 per cent. increase in pensions means that the increase is appoximately five times that which occurred during the time of the Labour Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, as regards what the Minister said about targeting those people who are worse off, can he tell the House what is the take-up of family credit at present?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I may have the figure for take-up of family credit somewhere in my brief, but I am unable to look for it at the moment. I think, in

413
the circumstances, that I had better write to the noble Baroness. However, as she will know, we launched an extensive campaign to increase the take-up of family credit and I can confirm that it is now ahead of that of its predecessor.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that I believe the relevant figure is 63 per cent. compared with 76 per cent. for the old supplementary benefit. However, was the Minister's unwillingness to answer the question I put to him about the Church of England report due to the fact that the Government do not agree with the conclusions, or because they do not like them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I myself have not read the report, but no doubt we shall comment on it at some point.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept from me that part of the report pays great tribute to what the Government have done? The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has used figures selectively out of the report. If my noble friend has time to read it, I think he will be encouraged on the Government's behalf to continue along the line which the Government are taking.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I shall take time to read the report.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is it not the case that the number of people now living on income support has increased by 50 per cent. in the last decade? That amounts to 9 million people now living on income support. How does the Government's increase in spending which the Minister has outlined today tie up with a 50 per cent. increase in need?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, I said that we had increased spending overall on social security by some 36 per cent. in real terms. The increased spending on income support over spending on the previous supplementary benefit and housing benefit amounts to about 120 per cent.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, have the Government any plan in mind to increase old age pensions to people over 90?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have no immediate plans for that.

Investments: Advice to Ministers
3.14 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the advice given to Ministers on taking office as to those actions they should take and those actions they should refrain from taking in respect of investments, to avoid a conflict of interests.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the general principle is that Ministers should ensure that no conflict arises or appears to arise between their private interests and public duties. This was set out by the then Secretary of the Cabinet in a memorandum to the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life in 1975, a copy of which is in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that towards the end of last year, to be exact on 25th November 1989, an article appeared in the Financial Times? It arose because of alleged impropriety by Mr. Cecil Parkinson and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall quote the passage for greater accuracy. It came at the end of a long article suggesting that some changes should be made. The newspaper stated:
"But is it really too much to ask that the government make its own guidelines public, in order to strengthen their impact and help ensure that conflicts are seen to be avoided?"
Is that not good advice, not merely from the point of view of the Opposition, but from that of the Government and even that of Ministers? Surely the majority of them are scrupulous in their observance of guidelines.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the detailed advice to Ministers is contained in a Cabinet document. It has been the practice of successive governments that Cabinet documents should be confidential, but there is no great secret about them. As I said in my original Answer, in 1975 the then Secretary to the Cabinet submitted a memorandum to the Royal Commission, to which I referred. To all intents and purposes, the advice which was rehearsed in that memorandum is the same today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, Ministers' rules of conduct are kept in confidence in the Cabinet Office. However, there is no secret about them. In those circumstances and because of recent events, would it not be proper to publish them so that the public may know precisely what the rules are?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has a great deal more experience of these matters than I have. However, he would probably agree with me that as the years have gone by —and I am talking about the last 100 to 150 years —from time to time Prime Ministers or Ministers of the day have given answers about advice to Ministers, usually in answer to Parliamentary Questions. All the time it has always been accepted by all governments that the advice contained in a Cabinet document should be confidential.
I am being quite open with the House. I remind your Lordships that in 1975 a memorandum was drawn up; that memorandum is to be found in the Library of your Lordships' House. I state quite openly that to all intents and purposes the advice in the Cabinet document remains very much the same as it was in that 1975 memorandum.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, no doubt the advice is the same but if the Government's policy

415
of a shareholding democracy is put into effect, then is it not the case that more and more people would hold shares? Upon becoming Members of the Cabinet, a number of Members of the present Government did not put that policy into effect before declaring themselves to have no shares. Nevertheless, on reflection, the view may be taken that it is high time that this matter was made public. Thus if there is disquiet on the matter —and I think that there is —it may be put to rest and the public may be reassured that, while in the nature of things there may be occasional mistakes, there is no general avoidance of the rules laid down.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may seek to put the matter to rest. On assuming office, Ministers cannot be expected to dispose of all their investments. But when a Minister takes office he or she is given advice on how to ensure that any investments do not create a conflict of interest. I believe that that is right.

British Transport Police: Chief Constable's Report
3.18 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the annual report of the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police is marked "Private and not for publication".
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, this is a matter for the British Transport Police committee. However, I understand that the committee considered the question of privacy last year and agreed that the chief constable's annual report for 1989 and subsequent years would be given a wider audience that in the past. Accordingly, the annual report for 1989, which will be presented to the BTP committee within the next few months, will not be restricted and its contents will be generally available. Meanwhile, as the noble Lord will know, copies of past reports are already available in the Library of this House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. It gives me great pleasure because the matter was raised in the House on 26th January last year. Ministers undertook to discuss the matter and it has taken a year to make some progress. Nevertheless, I welcome the information given to us today because it is obvious that the travelling public have the right to know about the level of crime that takes place on British Railways.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord is delighted.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister say on whose authority the two embargos were placed on this year's annual report —first, that it is private and, secondly, that it is not to be published? I
416
ask that question because in the annual reports of London Regional Transport and of British Rail reference is made to the British Transport Police. In the case of British Rail, details of offences and prosecutions are listed. That information should be amplified in the annual report of the BTP.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the precise arrangements are for British Transport Police and the police committee to decide. I understand that, as in previous years, a copy of the report will be available in the Library of this House and that copies will be distributed to main public libraries. I believe that is broadly in line with the practice in other police forces. That practice is largely a matter for chief constables to decide.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Viscount will find that chief constables of Home Office police forces, if I may describe them like that, have an obligation to publish an annual report and submit it through their police authority. Is the Minister aware that we very much hope that copies of the report will be made available not only to public libraries but also to the press so that the travelling public have information on this matter which affects their security when they travel on British Rail?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I have already said, these are matters for the British Transport Police committee to consider and decide upon. The question of publication was considered by the committee following the appointment of a new chief constable in April 1989. The committee decided to make copies of future reports more widely available than in the past. However, the 1988 report had by then already been printed in the old form. I draw the attention of the noble Lord to the British Transport Police.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister saying that if the BTP committee had decided to retain the confidentiality rule and the rule preventing publication, no one could overrule that? Surely a Minister could overrule that.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am saying that the BTP committee has decided that the report will be available in future.

Defence Expenditure
3.22 p.m.
Lord Mayhew asked Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much defence expenditure is planned to grow in real terms between 1988–89 and 1991–92.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, on current projections of inflation the planned defence budget for 1991 to 1992 is greater by just under 1 per cent. in real terms than defence expenditure in 1988 to 1989.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the present level of defence expenditure was decided some years ago to meet a threat from the Warsaw Pact which has since ceased to exist? Does he further agree that the new threats call for a budget of a different kind which is smaller in size? Is it not preposterous now to increase in real terms the level of defence expenditure? Is there not an overwhelming case for an immediate defence review?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we shall at all times continue to provide the resources necessary to maintain our security and to maintain our responsibilities within the alliance. At the same time we shall continue to pursue arms control agreements which enable our security to be maintained at less cost. Furthermore, we shall not take any steps which could prejudice the prospects for a CFE accord. At a time of heightened uncertainty in Europe, any budgetary decisions which had the effect of narrowing our options for the future would be very unwise.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Government will recall that twice in the lifetime of many of us the failure of successive governments to provide adequately for national defence brought us to the verge of defeat and involved us in long and terrible wars? Will the Government always keep that recollection firmly in mind and not be led astray by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend speaks wise words. It is with those recollections firmly in mind that we shall not reduce our defence budget. The right answers should only emerge after clear and rational thought, not as a series of knee-jerk reactions from those who do not carry the responsibility for the defence of our country.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister include among those he accuses of knee-jerk reactions President Bush?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I regard that as a somewhat facile remark in these circumstances. I should make it quite clear that we support the proposals of President Bush for further defence reductions in the United States and in Soviet stationed forces in Europe as part of the agreement being negotiated in Vienna at this time. The proposals were discussed with us in advance and we indicated our support. I should remind noble Lords that the United States spends a higher proportion of its national income on defence than any other major European country. Naturally it wants to make some reductions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it appears that the United States is trying to get its defence expenditure down to our level. Is it not time that the Government looked at other European nations with a view to getting our expenditure down to the level of those nations? It is not merely a question of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, although
418
he is no mean expert on the subject. The advice he has received has come from many parts of the world. Action is being taken on this issue by the United States, the Soviet Union and other European countries but the Government are standing out for no good reason whatsoever except that they have made their decision and they are determined to stand by it even if they are wrong. Is that not the case?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords; that is most certainly not the case. I hope that I have made the reasons why the Government are not reducing the defence budget extremely clear in the past few minutes. Furthermore, at the last meeting of the defence planning committee in November 1989 all NATO defence ministers committed themselves not to make unilateral reductions in their force levels that would undermine the prospects of a CFE accord. That is the position we shall maintain.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that things are moving quickly? Is he also aware that we on this side of the Chamber are just as concerned about the defence of the realm as noble Lords opposite? However, are the Government not aware that things are now moving helter-skelter in Europe with the reunification of Germany high on the agenda? Is it not sheer complacency for the Government not to consider now radical alterations to their defence deployment, including alterations to the number of troops in Germany, so that when action has to be taken it can be done on a reasonable and planned basis?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord makes the case for exactly what I have just said. As he pointed out, because things are moving with such speed and with such uncertainty in the rest of the world, particularly in the USSR, we shall continue to maintain our guard and keep it up until, and if, things improve. Certainly under previous Labour governments defence reviews meant defence cuts whatever the consequences for national security.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend not concerned that despite all the sweet and honeyed words that have come from the Soviet Union and the intentions which we believe are to be carried out, the production of submarines, particularly nuclear submarines, and the production of tanks in the Soviet Union has increased steadily since Mr. Gorbachev came to power? Until there is some reality, would it not be unwise to start disarmament while huge defence superiority exists in the Soviet Union?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is of course right on that point. The production of submarines is still increasing at a considerable rate. I also agree with my noble friend that we must keep up our guard until, and if, things improve considerably in that part of the world,.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister not appreciate that the historic changes that have taken place in the political map of the world,

419
especially in Eastern Europe, call for a major response from Her Majesty's Government? If the principle of flexible response has guided military policy over the years, how about some flexibility of response in military expenditure at this time? Will the Government take heart from the intention of President Bush to make reciprocal cuts in troops in Europe and give the British people the prospect of a peace dividend? Will the Minister bear in mind that there are many people in this country who want to share in that peace dividend —those who want homes, those who want better education and those who want a better health service?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we should all like to share in the benefits which the noble Lord mentioned. However, for the time being they will not come from a lowering of our defences in this country. I want to make that quite clear to the noble Lord. Regarding his point about flexible response, a flexible response is the best means of deterring aggression in a nuclear age. At all times it ensures that any aggressor would face the risk of unacceptable consequences. That is the best guarantee of effective security.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we have already taken 24 minutes on this business.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Denham: My Lords, I believe that the feeling of the House is that Question Time has gone on for rather longer than it normally does. The House has already expressed a wish; the Procedure Committee has recommended and the House has endorsed that recommendation that Question Time should last for 20 minutes. We have now taken 24 minutes. The time has come to make a statement, unless the House disagrees with me.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sure that the House accepts the general proposition that we should follow the Procedure Committee's advice on these matters. However, in this case I believe that when the foreign affairs spokesman of the Liberal Democrat Party rises to his feet to ask a question the House would be prepared to listen to him. It does not help proceedings when the Government Chief Whip mumbles in his seat.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I shall of course give way to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, but I had hoped for his support on this occasion.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister disagree with the former United States Secretary of State for Defence who said that the military balance in Europe has been radically altered? Should we not respond to that alteration rather than sitting pat? Does he not also agree with the former Secretary of State, Mr. Schlesinger, that high ceilings of defence in Western Europe legitimise a Soviet presence instead of encouraging Soviet withdrawal?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we shall respond to that particular point when we think it appropriate.
420
We do not believe that it is appropriate at this moment.

Business
3.33 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Mr. Colin Wallace.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Code of Practice Trade Union Ballots on Industrial Action and the Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) (No. 2) Order 1989 will be taken.
With the leave of the House, I should also like to confirm that, subject to the progress of business, it is intended that the Easter Recess should be taken in the week before Easter rather than afterwards, as is the normal practice. It is hoped that that will be more convenient for Members of the House since Easter is relatively late this year. It may also be for the convenience of noble Lords to know that it is expected that the House will return on Wednesday, 18th April.

British Film Institute Southbank Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 5

Schedule 1

Clauses 6 to 11

Schedule 2

Clause 12

Schedule 3

Clauses 13 to 41.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Weights and Measures (Sale of Wine) Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley Lord Mason of Barnsley rose to move, That the Bill be withdrawn.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been informed by the Government that it is their intention to make an order prescribing the measures in which wine may be sold by the glass on licensed premises. I am informed that they expect to be able to raise such an order in Parliament before the summer for approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. It is therefore no longer necessary for me to proceed with the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be withdrawn. —(Lord Mason of Barnsley.)
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it would be appropriate for your Lordships to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, on the progress that he has made on this important matter. As a result of his having brought the matter before your Lordships' House it is now to be dealt with by the Government. The noble Lord is greatly to be congratulated.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I am happy to confirm that it is the Government's intention to proceed as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, has described.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we congratulate the Government on taking action on this matter at long last. They could have done so five years ago. Will the Minister be good enough to join the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Mason on bringing the matter to the attention of Parliament?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall be answering a Question for Written Answer from the noble Lord later today from which I hope that the noble Lord will extract the necessary measure of satisfaction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 37 [Regulations about competence and conduct of authorised practitioners]:
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 29, line 38, after ("Lord Chancellor") insert ("with the consent of the Master of the Rolls").
The noble and learned Lord said: The clause deals with regulations governing the competence and conduct of authorised practitioners. Its provisions mainly concern the solicitors' branch of the
422
profession. Earlier I moved and spoke to a series of amendments which attempted to remove those parts of the Bill in which the Executive seek novel powers to dominate an independent legal profession in the exercise of matters wholly outside politics and wholly within the province and practice of a profession.
I repeat my comment that it is ironic that, whereas in Eastern Europe the legal profession is excitedly throwing off all the shackles of executive domination which have existed for the past 50 years, here we are introducing them for the first time. That will make our country the only country outside a few remaining communist dictatorships where so much regulatory power is given to a Minister over an independent legal profession.
It will be said that the Lord Chancellor is a very special Minister, and has never taken such powers hitherto. Clause 37 deals with the competence and conduct of conveyancers, who are professionals to whom the citizen goes when seeking to buy or sell property. The Government will now enter that arena. It is not just this particular Lord Chancellor who will have the additional powers; they will apply to all future Lord Chancellors in all future governments. Hitherto the supervision of the solicitors' branch has been given to a judicial officer, the Master of the Rolls. Now it is to be given to a Minister. In the guise of reform the Government are seeking to extend government authority. That is a very strange path for a Conservative Administration to tread.
In my earlier amendments I sought to remove the Minister altogether from these novel powers which he now seeks. However, this amendment asks the Government at least to act with the consent of the judiciary in matters which are wholly unconnected with policy and concern merely administration of the ordinary business of an independent legal profession. The amendment tries, admittedly in a minor way, to maintain that balance between the Executive and the judiciary which, in the view of some of us, is affected by this Bill.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree to qualify the assumption of increased government power by at least sharing that power with the Master of the Rolls whose duty, as I understand it, is at present to supervise the solicitors' branch of the profession. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not agree with every amendment to this Bill that my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell has moved. However, we are faced with a situation in which, as he says, the Master of the Rolls remains with statutory responsibility for the working of the solicitors' branch of the profession while Clause 37 gives the Lord Chancellor jurisdiction with regard to conveyancing services carried out by solicitors and other people.
Unless the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend or an amendment with similar effect is added to the clause, we shall find (shall we not?) that the Master of the Rolls has been bypassed in the responsibilities which, under statute, he has to exercise.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may deal first with the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. The

423
regulation-making power in question is in respect of authorised practitioners. The jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls at present is in relation to the solicitors' branch of the profession. There is no intention whatever in any way to diminish that jurisdiction. Indeed, it is reinforced in relation to rights of audience in the way that was described earlier.
The regulation-making power here in question is a regulation-making power in respect of authorised practitioners, who will be banks, building societies and the like. I should have thought it appropriate that responsibility for these regulations should lie with the Lord Chancellor and that he should be answerable to Parliament for them. It is quite clear that in making regulations under this kind of power the Lord Chancellor would wish to consult widely. I have no doubt whatever that in that situation it would be very appropriate for him to consult the Master of the Rolls and others. However, this is not a regulation so far as the solicitors' branch of the profession is concerned.
It is a regulation that may be of great importance to the solicitors' branch but I suggest to the Committee that the appropriate person to hold such responsibility is the Lord Chancellor. In fact this move is a reduction of the powers which were given to the Lord Chancellor under the Building Societies Act. In that Act he was given the responsibility of individual consideration of the grant of authority to authorised practitioners.
In the light of that explanation I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I was very glad to hear my noble and learned friend say that he personally, in holding the office that he does, would consult with the Master of the Rolls. Of course, that is the noble and learned Lord himself saying that. I immediately accept that. However, it seems a little strange that the Master of the Rolls who has perfectly adequately looked after the position with regard to conveyancers should not be the appropriate person to regulate it now that the practice is being extended to other persons. I just remark on the continual increase in the powers of the Executive who always see Ministers of the future coming in to control the affairs of an independent legal profession.
I happily accept what my noble and learned friend says on his own behalf in respect of his term of office; namely, that he will consult. I sincerely hope that any who follow him in office will also undertake consultation in the same way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 178A and 178ZA not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 178AA:
Page 29, line 43, at end insert ("; and
(c) that authorised practitioners settle their prices for the provision of conveyancing services on a fair and reasonable basis to provide a reasonable rate of return on the costs of providing those services alone.").
The noble Lord said: At the very outset perhaps I may say that the object of all the amendments with which I shall be associated together with my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies is to ensure that the public are properly safeguarded. It is not in any way an effort to exclude people who enter the competition field, as we must now refer to it in professional life presumably as well as in commercial life. With those who fairly come into the competition field, if they behave properly when authorised by this Bill, we have no quarrel. However, we want to ensure that the public are properly protected. The noble and learned Lord has always said that that was one of his aims, consistent of course with the changes that are effected by this Bill.
I should like to quote from paragraph 5.14 of the Government's White Paper. It refers to authorised practitioners, who shall submit to the board,
"each year details of the prices they charge for conveyancing services, certifying that those prices have been settled on a fair and reasonable basis to provide a reasonable rate of return on the costs of providing those services alone".
The people whom I have largely in mind are not the small authorised practitioners who may want very vigorously to undercut. That is not a pleasant situation; but it is not the main mischief that I am after. The main mischief concerns the large financial institutions which have very substantial resources. They would be able to destroy the very competition that is supposed to be fair and proper competition in providing conveyancing services. Compared with the independent conveyancers those institutions will be able to deal with the matter by subsidies from profitable parts of their financial enterprise other than conveyancing work. That is the mischief with which this amendment seeks to deal by underlining the intention contained in the White Paper and seeking its insertion in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may briefly support the principle behind the amendment. One of the concerns is the position of the high street solicitor. Some of us at the Bar think that that is perhaps almost as important as our own position. His position may be one of some difficulty. Any measure that seeks to ensure fair competition between those who provide services under the Bill must be acceptable.
This matter arose in another context with the cab rank and legal aid situation. It will arise in another context later in the Bill. But anything that can be done to ensure fair competition, with respect, should be written into the Bill. For that reason I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: In Clause 37 power is given, that,
"The Lord Chancellor may by regulation make such provision as he considers expedient with a view to securing —

(a) that authorised practitioners maintain satisfactory standards of competence and conduct in connection with the provision by them of conveyancing services; and

(b) that the interests of their clients are satisfactorily protected".

In addition to that, there is provision in relation to the conveyancing board. I mentioned that earlier in the course of the consideration of this part of the

425
Bill. There is the general duty of the board in Clause 32(1),
"to seek to develop competition in the provision of conveyancing services",
and the general provisions that appear in Clause 14 and open this Part of the Bill. Attention was drawn to them some time ago.
The concerns to which the noble Lord has referred are concerns that I certainly have very much in mind. My understanding is that the regulation-making powers that are contained in Clause 37 already enable me to make the regulations that would be required. I wish to make it clear that these are matters on which, before any regulations are made, I should like to consult. We have already indicated what is in mind. Before any regulations are made, that would be a matter that I would wish to consult about.
Perhaps I may refer to one other aspect. In considering this, I have felt that these regulations could be of quite considerable importance. At the present moment, we have provided that they should be subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, having regard to the other parts of the Bill, in which the affirmative resolution has been used, I believe that it might be very good that we should make this type of regulation subject to the affirmative procedure. Effectively I should be under the duty to report fully to Parliament on the results of the consultation and the final form of the regulations so that Parliament would know exactly what the regulations were to be before the system was put into effect. Of course there is power to alter the regulations, to which the same procedure should apply.
I believe that it is in the interests of us all that we achieve the best possible procedure in the light of practical considerations. I believe that this system is the best way of assuring Parliament that its wishes in this connection are fully carried out.
I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment. If the lines that I have suggested are acceptable, then I shall undertake to bring forward at Report stage an amendment to put it into the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe that in this way we may well be able to settle the detailed matters in a way acceptable to all those who have an interest in the matter.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful —we on these Benches certainly are —for the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that there will be an amendment at Report stage which makes the making of regulations, including regulations under Clause 37, subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assurance.
Perhaps I may refer back to the reasoning behind the amendment. He will remember that I especially stressed the threat of cross-subsidy (if I may use that phrase) which may come from the rather wealthy institutions, contrary, as I would say, to the public benefit. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord agrees with that. He has said that it is the kind of
426
matter that he would have in mind when making regulations, and that he would be consulting in regard to them. I understood, I hope correctly, that the noble and learned Lord has fully in mind the dangers about which I have tried to speak. He has nodded his head, for which I am most grateful. I understand that it was the type of regulation about which he would be thinking, the precise nature of it being determined after he has had consultation with the appropriate bodies. The noble and learned Lord wishes to say something.
The Lord Chancellor: I should not like it to be left on the nod of the head, as it were, in case it might be thought disrespectful to the noble Lord. I should like to make it clear that I believe it essential that the competition should be fair. The question is how best to secure that without involving some unnecessarily elaborate procedure. It is quite clear that, among other things, we shall require —and I believe, so far as I can judge, that it is agreed by all those who have an interest in the area —that the precise prices being charged should be stated. Therefore the level of charge that these authorised practitioners are making will be obvious. I shall endeavour to ensure that there is machinery for dealing with any difficulty that might arise from that pricing being in any sense unfair. I believe that that is the objective that the noble Lord has in mind on this aspect of the matter.
I have in mind of course the protection of clients and the maintenance of satisfactory standards of competence and conduct in the discharge of the responsibilities of providing conveyancing services.
Lord Mishcon: Although not using again the phrase "cross-subsidising", I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will have that very thought in mind when he considers what is fair and proper and will safeguard the public. In view of the very fair assurance that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 178AB:
Page 29, line 43, at end insert ("; and
(c) that authorised practitioners are not unfairly prejudiced against in relation to their conveyancing competitors.").
The noble Lord said: First, I have to apologise for my noble friend Lady Stedman, who is temporarily indisposed and was unable to be present when the paving amendment was called. However, the paving amendment was only to leave out the word "and". I hope therefore that the essence of the matter is still available to me.
These are probing amendments at this stage in our proceedings. I hope therefore that the Committee will forgive my lack of thorough acquaintance with the essence of these matters at short notice. The amendment stems from the White Paper, in which the Government stated their intention to introduce a conveyancing code of conduct which would prohibit an authorised conveyancer acting for both buyer and seller. I understand very well the desire of the Lord Chancellor to avoid conflict of interest for the better conduct of justice and of conveyancing.
Nevertheless I also understand that the Council of Mortgage Lenders takes the view that such a prohibition, in addition to being impractical, would be unfair, given that licensed conveyancers can already act for both parties, as can solicitors in certain circumstances.
I realise that it is a difficult issue and that the Government have an understandable desire to prevent any potential conflict of interests. However, it appears that the circumstances in which all those carrying out conveyancing could act for both parties should be clearly defined in regulations. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: This is the other side of the question that we were discussing earlier. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for presenting the amendment. His knowledge of the subject is wide but we appreciate that he has taken over the matter at short notice.
In achieving a balanced set of regulations it is one of the points with which I am trying to deal. As I explained earlier, it is right that the regulations should be the subject of consultation and affirmative resolution procedure. The position of the financial institutions on the one hand —if I may refer to the general body of authorised practitioners as such —and licensed conveyancers or solicitors on the other may be somewhat different. The authorised practitioners are to be a new and innovative force in the conveyancing field. Therefore, one must be particularly careful and I wish to ensure a balanced protection.
The powers under Clause 37 are directed towards the protection of the clients as well as satisfactory conduct on the part of the authorised practitioner. All the codes of conduct applicable in the area must be taken into account. There is an interaction between the professional conduct rules of the professional bodies and the authorised practitioners' possible practices because, on the basis of what we have in mind, the authorised practitioners require to have their transactions in that area supervised by qualified people. Therefore, the way in which the qualified people carry out transactions and so forth will be subject to that.
The noble Lord can be assured that I shall endeavour to produce regulations which are fair to everyone operating in that field.
Lord Diamond: It is with great sincerity that I thank the noble and learned Lord for having dealt with the matter so fully and, as one would expect, so reasonably. I look forward to the next stages. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 178B:
Page 30, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who spoke to it in moving Amendment No. 175A. He tells me that he does not wish to move the amendment today. When the noble Earl spoke my noble and learned
428
friend did not reply to this amendment, and before he does so I should like to put before the Committee several further considerations.
I believe that where the subsection gives particular examples of regulations to be made in a clause which, in formal terms, is permissive on the Lord Chancellor, it would not be unreasonable to put down a marker by providing that any provision which the Lord Chancellor deems it expedient to make —I quote from subsection (1) —shall (and not just may) include provisions to deal with some of the significant matters listed in subsection (2). I make that point in particular because the matters listed in subsection (2)(b), (c) and (d) —I do not comment on other matters contained in the subsection —should be set out in full in primary legislation.
Will my noble and learned friend consider dividing the clause so that some of the matters are "may" matters —for example, subsection (2)(a) —and others are "shall" matters? Would that be seen as a draftsman's abomination? To deal in that way with the matters which I believe should be in primary legislation would reassure some of us who view with a measure of cynicism various provisions contained in this part of the Bill.
I have another concern about these matters. I am not sure whether both subsections (2)(b) and (c) or only one —and if only one, which one? —should qualify for "shall" treatment. They are most confusing, as is the White Paper.
In paragraph 5.9 of the White Paper the Government propose that the legislation will require conveyancing to be carried out or supervised by defined persons with the relevant professional expertise. The code of conduct was to have provided that one individual must be responsible for the direction and supervision of the conveyancing services. Neither the legislative requirement nor the code of conduct appears to have come through into the Bill.
It may be that between them both subsections are intended to provide the proposals contained in the White Paper, but I find it difficult to see how. In an effort to resolve my difficulty I trawled through the briefs that I received. In a critical analysis of the Bill published by the Society of Licensed Conveyancers, I read that subsection (2)(c) is intended to replicate the provisions contained in the code of conduct —I am not too sure about that —and that subsection (2)(b) is a deliberate obfuscation which caused the society concern. That is just so. I note also from its briefing that the society considers Clause 37 to be the single most important clause of the Bill's conveyancing provisions; and it may be right.
We shall come to several important amendments to the clauses I have mentioned, and I do not wish to pre-empt the debate. However, it would be helpful to the Committee if, in answering this amendment, my noble and learned friend could explain the drafting of the clauses and say what they are intended to accomplish.
The amendment on the Marshalled List standing in the name of the noble Earl proposes to substitute "shall" for "may" in line 1 on page 30. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I gave an explanation of the amendment when it was spoken to by the noble Earl. However, for completeness I shall refer to the matter in answer to my noble friend Lord Coleraine. First, the general purpose of the regulation-making power is set out in Clause 37(1)(a) and (b). Subsection (2) is the actual regulation-making power and I have sought to set out the headings under which, as I now see matters, the regulations may be required.
As regards subsection (2)(b), I have in mind the description of the qualifications referred to in the White Paper; namely, holding the proper degree of legal qualification either as solicitor, barrister or licensed conveyancer. I believe that it may also be desirable to have power to make quite clear which are the descriptions of work. My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked the other day about conveyancing services. Of course, there is a definition of that sort in Section 22 of the Solicitors Act. Therefore, I believe that it may be useful in the conduct of the work, particularly in the initial stages, that descriptions of work are set out in fair detail so that those operating this scheme may know what is wanted. The idea is to direct attention to the particular type of qualifications which are required on the lines which I have just described.
The object of subsection (2)(c) is to enable me to make regulations putting the particular transaction under the control of a particular individual. I have a fear, which I wish to avoid, that if a large organisation does conveyancing, one might find one's transaction passing from one person to another. It is desirable to ensure, so far as practicable —and obviously there are situations where a person may be taken ill in the middle of a transaction, which happens even in the best regulated firms of solicitors —that the client should be able to have recourse to a particular person whom he recognises as being responsible for the supervision of his transaction and to whom, if the client has taken up the offer of a personal interview (which I believe is quite an important aspect of this) the client would expect to speak if he had another matter to raise. Therefore, that is the purpose of subsection (2)(c).
As regards replacing "may" by "shall", or splitting the clause, I believe it would be right to make provision under all of the subsections so that that sort of distinction would not be justfied on my present understanding of what is required. However, I also believe that "shall' is not an easy word to have in this sort of situation where, in the light of experience, there also needs to be power to alter the regulations. Of course, to be completely effective the word "shall' requires some form of time limit and that would not be practical.
I believe I am right in saying —and no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong —that that form of drafting powers is quite common and reasonable. I know that sometimes even the giving of headings is regarded as unnecessary, but I believe that that is a proper method of indicating to Parliament what we believe should be required in the form of headings as we stand at this stage. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: I thank my noble and learned friend for what he has said but how far is this to go? It is not very difficult to do a conveyance as such, but there are all sorts of matters such as inheritance and ownership of one kind or another which can complicate the issue. Would the conveyancer be expected to go into all those questions, because those matters would normally be the responsibility of a solicitor?
The Lord Chancellor: I suggested in the White Paper that the qualified person in charge of the transaction should have a responsibility at the initial interview to explain precisely the nature of the service to be offered. Obviously, the essential part of that is the preparation of the conveyancing documents, but solicitors in private practice might, for example, give a much more ample service by giving advice on matters related to the transaction.
Therefore, I believe it right that there should be an obligation on those providing the service as authorised practitioners to state exactly the scope of what they are able to provide. If there are matters which appear to be related to the transaction upon which legal advice is required but which they are not able to offer, the client should be so advised. He will then have an opportunity to go elsewhere to cover the whole matter.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Is the problem not what they are able to provide but what they think they are able to provide, which may be totally inadequate?
The Lord Chancellor: I hope that the professional standards of those carrying out the work will be such as to enable them to communicate effectively. They are to be solicitors, licensed conveyancers or barristers and I believe that they are the most satisfactory people in whom to repose confidence on this point. I believe that that is justified confidence. I cannot think of anybody else upon whom I would wish the responsibility of explaining this matter to rest but a professional person with a responsibility for the transaction.
The Earl of Selkirk: Is my noble and learned friend suggesting that the licensed conveyancers would normally be working under the general supervision of a fully qualified person?
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Parliament decided some considerable time ago that to be a licensed conveyancer is a sufficient qualification to do conveyancing. Therefore, an option available here is to have licensed conveyancers in charge of the conveyancing transactions.
However, if they are in charge of a transaction, they will be obliged, at the first interview to explain to the client the limitations of the service which they are able to provide. If legal advice is required beyond that, then that is for others to do. However, the setting up of a profession of licensed conveyancers has been accomplished and there are quite a number of licensed conveyancers in action at present. They do not and cannot profess to offer the full service which a solicitor can give because they are not

431
qualified in the whole range of professional expertise of a solicitor.
Lord Mishcon: I have no wish to enlarge this debate beyond reason. However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord realises that the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is very real and practical. I say with deep respect that, very largely we are living in a dream world.
First, the person who comes along to the licensed conveyancer or authorised practitioner does not know in the normal way what questions to ask at the consultation. It would be a very intelligent and experienced layman who would know the limitations of the advice of the conveyancer.
Also someone who does not have the knowledge will not know what he should warn the client about in regard to the limitations of his knowledge. To a large extent we are really operating in a dream world. Nevertheless, the Bill is before us, the Second Reading has taken place and one can only pray.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Yesterday evening on an Unstarred Question there were protests from all sides of your Lordships' Chamber about the prolixity of statutes and in particular about the insertion of unnecessary provisions. I venture to ask my noble and learned friend a question about the necessity of subsection (2) in its present permissive form.
Subsection (1) is permissive. It states:
"The Lord Chancellor may by regulation",
carry out paragraphs (a) and (b). Subsection (2) states:
"The regulations may in particular",
and then there are 15 lines of, presumably, particular examples of what he could do under subsection (1).
The question therefore arises: if these words —the whole of subsection (2) —were removed, could not my noble and learned friend exercise precisely by regulation all the powers that are mentioned therein? If the answer is inevitably yes, why are the words there? My noble and learned friend said that this form of legislation was common and reasonable. I personally had not noticed it until last Session when it is true it came into a number of Bills, I think for the first time. Whether it is reasonable is altogether another matter. If it is a prolix form of legislation, it is clearly unnecessary, unreasonable and undesirable.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I willingly join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in prayers; whether or not those prayers will be answered I am not certain. However, I certainly share his anxiety.
Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend whether the authorised practitioner, in describing the services he offers, will be required to do so in writing? That seems to be particularly necessary having regard to subsection (2)(c), which only requires,
"authorised practitioners to arrange, so far as is reasonably practicable, for each transaction to be under the overall control of the same individual".
It therefore seems to me that without something in writing the possibility of confusion becomes virtually a certainty.
The Lord Chancellor: There is at the present time in existence —and there has been for some time —a profession of licensed conveyancer. If a member of the public goes to a licensed conveyancer he is entitled to an explanation of the services the licensed conveyancer can offer. There is nothing of a dream world about that. If he goes to a solicitor he can expect the solicitor to explain to him what services he offers. If he wishes to make a comparison he should be able, by comparing what the two professional people have told him, to ascertain the difference between those services. That is a practical matter and I have no doubt that it happens.
It may well be, for all I know, that some who go to solicitors may be left somewhat hazy about the services offered, but, if so, that particular aspect of dreaming should be resolved at the earliest possible moment. The art of communication is an important part of satisfactory legal services, whether they be conveyancing or other matters.
With regard to my noble friend Lord Peyton, I appreciate that he is willing to join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in prayer. I certainly hope that his prayers will be answered and that the legal profession and the profession of licensed conveyancers will be able to carry out the desires of the noble Lord.
It is certainly my intention that the services should be described in writing and that at the conclusion of the interview the client should have the necessary advice in writing from the practitioner, the professional person. I believe that will be of considerable assistance. Where the client does not wish to take advantage of the personal interview, writing would also be necessary.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will my noble and learned friend kindly answer my original question; namely: if the 15 lines were removed would he not be able to do everything contained in those 15 lines?
The Lord Chancellor: I thought I had dealt with that matter, but I shall try to do so more directly in answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Strictly speaking, I think it is true that if those 15 lines were omitted I could still do what I have in mind. As I said earlier, it is right that where regulation-making power is being conferred by Parliament on the Lord Chancellor —or on anyone else, for that matter —the heads under which it is anticipated the power may be used should be indicated. I believe that is part of the way in which Parliament may be reasonably assured of what is in mind.
It is obvious, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, believes that to do that has an effect. It is not just the addition of unnecessary words; it is also indicating that Parliament has in mind that this is a power which would be useful and which it may well expect to be exercised. The purpose of this, therefore, is to give some degree of detail about the areas in which Parliament in particular has it in mind the powers will be exercised. I believe moist of your Lordships will find that useful in considering whether these powers should properly be granted.
Baroness Elles: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will reconsider this clause. He is aware of clients who know what solicitors and conveyancers say and they understand what is said to them. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to a dream world; but I would not call it a dream world —I would call it the world of reality. The vast number of people I have assisted in my voluntary social work over many years in south London simply do not understand the beginning of what a conveyance is, even when they have to move house. We have tremendous trouble trying to explain such matters to ordinary people. whom I thought it was the purpose of this Bill to help. I do not think this clause helps those people, though it may help the kind of people my noble and learned friend possibly has in mind. I should be most grateful if he would reconsider the objective of this clause and the people it is meant to help.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend expresses exactly what I wish to achieve; namely, that I can make regulations under which it will be the responsibility of the professional person to tell these people in plain language what it is the professional person is prepared to do for them. I do not imagine for one moment that the professional person —at least, I hope not —will proceed by trying to explain the matter to the ordinary client in technical language. The purpose of the interview is for the client to understand what is happening and what the solicitor or licensed conveyancer is to do for him. The purpose of this clause is to enable me to make the necessary regulations.
I believe the objective that my noble friend has stated is precisely what we want to achieve. I believe that a great deal of the trouble between the legal profession and its clients is in failure properly to explain the nature of the service. That is one reason I believe it is right that the advisory committee, which has general responsibilities under Part II, should be lay dominated. It should have in the majority people who are not lawyers and who will do what they can to make sure that when lawyers talk to them they do so in language that ordinary people can understand and appreciate.
Baroness Elles: My noble and learned friend makes a very valid point. Regulations made by him do not actually teach lawyers to speak simple and plain English. If he could put that into regulation he would provide a great benefit to the people of this country.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall certainly have in mind including in the regulations that the advice should be given in language that clients can understand.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I made, in effect, a Second Reading speech when we had an amendment to Clause 16, but I express the hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will have regard to what my noble friend Lady Elles said. My view is that the ordinary person seeking help in buying or selling a house is better protected by the law as it stands than he would be by the Government's proposals.
Lord Coleraine: I agree with my noble friend Lord Rippon. I also very much agree with my noble friend Lady Elles. It is absolutely vital that lawyers should talk in a way which everyone can understand. As my noble and learned friend said, there is nothing in this clause which casts doubt upon that.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will forgive me when I also say that it seems that where these provisions are not to be in private legislation —it is a pity that they are not —it is very much better that they should be set out in the clause even if that lengthens it. Having said that, I wish to thank my noble and learned friend for confirming that he is minded to put these provisions into effect. I thank him also for his very useful explanation of subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c). I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater: I think that this would be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Mr. Colin Wallace
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in another place about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement about the case of Mr. Colin Wallace.
"In a Written Answer on Tuesday to the honourable member for Arundel, my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that records had been found which brought to light information of material significance to the case of Mr. Wallace. Because those records had been overlooked, some misleading information had unwittingly been given to Members of this House by Ministers.
"As regards Mr. Wallace's employment in the Civil Service, the papers revealed no evidence that the decision to terminate it in 1975 was taken for reasons other than the offence with which he was charged; namely, disclosing classified information to the media without proper authority and at a time when he had already relinquished his post at Headquarters Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, in the light of the new information about his duties which has now come to light, the Government have decided to ask Mr. David Calcutt QC to examine the papers relating to Mr. Wallace's case so that he can consider whether its presentation to the Civil Service Appeal Board may have resulted in any injustice to Mr. Wallace and, if so, whether compensation should be paid.
"My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in a long Written Answer in

435
Hansard [col. 110 of 30th January] set out the position that had now emerged over Mr. Wallace's case. He set out also the distinct issues as they emerge from a special re-examination of departmental records by senior officials. This re-examination indicated:
"First, that papers previously overlooked showed that their earlier statements and letters need to be corrected (the Government have come forward to the House on this as early as possible and an inquiry is in hand within my department into how the papers were overlooked);
"Secondly, that the newly-found information raises a question-mark over the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case to the Civil Service Appeal Board, and Mr. Calcutt will review these matters;
"Thirdly, that no information has been found to substantiate Mr. Wallace's allegations of a cover-up relating to the Kincora Boys' Home in Belfast or to call in question the thoroughness of the major inquiries already made into that affair, including those of Sir George Terry and Judge Hughes;
"Fourthly, that no information was found to call into question Mr. Wallace's conviction for manslaughter on which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary advised the House on Tuesday; and
"Fifthly, that none of it calls into question the conclusion stated to the House by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 6th May 1987, following a special report to her by the Director-General of the Security Service, that there is no evidence to support suggestions of attempts to undermine or discredit Ministers or former Ministers.
"Mr. Speaker, my Statement follows the detailed answer given by my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the published letters to right honourable and honourable Members to whom the previous incorrect answers were given. In their actions, which relate to events some 15 years ago and the administrations of that time, the Government have sought to respond promptly and candidly to meet the responsibilities that fall to them as a result of the new information and in particular to tackle the question of possible injustice to Mr. Wallace in his Civil Service appeal."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I believe that the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating so clearly the Statement which has just been made in another place. First, does the Minister acknowledge that we are dealing with a major constitutional matter which ranges over all governments and leading parliamentarians for the past 20 years? Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was made aware of the matters which
436
caused the statements to be made this week as far back as last summer when Sir Michael Quinlan, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, urged Sir Robin Butler, the Cabinet Secretary and his deputy, Mr. Len Appleyard, to support an inquiry into these matters?
Can the Minister say at what precise date the Prime Minister was told of the unease of Sir Michael Quinlan? Can the Minister further explain why such a serious and potentially security-related matter was dealt with in such an offensive way to the dignity and rights of Parliament; namely, a Written Answer to a planted Question, which is acknowledged as the lowest form of response? At col. 726 of Hansard of 6th May 1987, in a statement on state security, the Prime Minister said that it was time to stop raking over the embers of events then 10 years old.
What does the Minister say now that these embers have burst into flame? In the same paragraph she asserted her confidence in the security service and in its skill and loyalty in carrying out its tasks. Can the Minister tell us how the Prime Minister and other Ministers evaluate advice from the security service? Can he say whether that advice is ever questioned or challenged?
The Prime Minister was yearning for bipartisan support for the security service in the statement which she made on 6th May 1987. Does the Minister understand that to earn that support there has to be full and frank disclosure, a measure of trust and a sense that reports are not just accepted at their face value? I sugggest that is a premise which is certainly lacking in this episode.
The Prime Minister has chosen letters and press briefings by her press secretary to tell the world that she has misled Parliament, ableit unwittingly, having been misled herself. Can the Minister say why she does not herself come to Parliament and make a statement? The second paragraph of the Statement says that misleading information had unwittingly been given to Members of this House. Can the Minister say whether that advice was given to the Prime Minister by civil servants?
Does the Minister not acknowledge that severe limitations have been placed upon the inquiry to be conducted by Mr. David Calcutt? Finally, in view of the fact that this Statement leaves more questions unanswered than otherwise, will he tell his right honourable friend that this matter can only be cleared up by a wide-ranging inquiry which will enable many of those in both governments and on all sides in both Houses to influence what is a major constitutional matter affecting both Houses, all parties and the national interest?
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. There now appears to be one central question and two subsidiary questions which arise from this very uneasy Statement to which we have listened. First, is it not absolutely clear that a number of people in the public service knew perfectly well, and have known for some years, that what Ministers were saying to Parliament was untrue and that they did nothing about it and were therefore, unlike

437
Ministers, a knowing party to the deceit? What action do the Government intend to take about this? Secondly, I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said. On what date did Ministers, and the Prime Minister in particular, become aware that the information they had given to Parliament was untrue? The Statement referred to the promptness of the response. We shall be able to judge the promptness of the response when we receive that precise information.
Thirdly, and centrally, the Prime Minister has in the past refused to countenance any part of the allegations of Mr. Wallace relating to the so-called Clockwork Orange operation. The Government have now been forced to admit that half of those allegations were true. Why should we be expected to believe, in the absence of a full and independent inquiry, that the other half relating to the smearing of politicians and the attempted destabilising of governments of both parties is any less true? Rumours of this kind have been occurring and occasionally surfacing for years. I have been loath to believe them. But they have reappeared too frequently and from too many different sources for automatic dismissal now to be sustainable.
Of those who bore primary responsibility for the security services in the relevant period, the former Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, has asked for a full judicial inquiry. He did so in 1987. So have the two Home Secretaries in that government, Mr. Merlyn Rees and myself. Mr. Calcutt's inquiry in no way meets the need. He is concerned with compensation for Mr. Wallace, which may well be appropriate, but much wider issues are at stake here. Nor is the matter in any way covered by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, of 8th December 1977 which the Prime Minister is very fond of quoting. A good deal of new material has emerged since then. As his statement in 1987 made clear, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has changed his mind about the need for a further inquiry.
In all these circumstances, if the Government continue to refuse a full and proper judicial inquiry, they will be behaving with an extraordinary discourtesy towards a former Prime Minister, a discourtesy bordering on the unconstitutional. They will be behaving with a lack of regard for proper and widespread concern and without responsibility for the true interests of the public service, including the security service.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and questions on the Statement. Ministers were made aware in September last that inaccurate statements may have been made. Since then an extensive review of papers has been conducted in preparation for a Statement to the House. The matter was decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence concerning Mr. Wallace. I think noble Lords will agree that the Government have acted promptly and with great candour and honesty. They have come forward as soon as possible in a positive manner.
Regarding Mr. Wallace's disciplinary case, there are some grounds for concern that an injustice may
438
have been done to Mr. Wallace in the manner in which his case was presented to the CSAB in 1975. If so, he is entitled to have that injustice remedied. That is what Mr. Calcutt is inquiring into. Mr. Calcutt's inquiry will be both thorough and impartial. He will see all the relevant papers in circumstances that will protect their confidentiality. Mr. Wallace will be able to make representations to him and Mr. Calcutt may also see other witnesses if he so wishes.
As concerns advice to Ministers, recent work in dealing with parliamentary inquiries about Mr. Wallace's case brought to light information on matters which arose under earlier Administrations. This information was found on departmental files and showed that some statements made by Ministers and officials required correction or clarification. The Ministry of Defence is making inquiries to establish how these errors occurred. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will report the outcome to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred to Clockwork Orange. Clockwork Orange appears to have been an anti-terrorist project conceived by individuals and directed at PIRA but never authorised. No evidence has been found of any Clockwork Orange II aimed at politicians or government. Regarding the wider spectrum mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, I make these positive points. A possible injustice to Mr. Wallace over his disciplinary case is being remedied by the Calcutt investigation. The Home Secretary has again reviewed the safety of Mr. Wallace's manslaughter conviction. Kincora has been investigated by the Terry and Hughes inquiries. Allegations of a cover up have not been substantiated by the review of departmental files. No information has been found to substantiate allegations of disinformation or black propaganda campaigns against politicians or Ministers of the day.
I hope that I have answered the important questions put to me. I hope noble Lords will agree that the Government are acting in a responsible manner in this case.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. It seems to me that he has not sufficiently or properly answered the principal question of my noble friend Lord Jenkins. Perhaps I may rephrase it. If Ministers were for 15 years misled by officials about the existence of a dirty tricks project in Northern Ireland, how can we know that they are not still being misled by officials about the existence of a dirty tricks project at national level in Britain? Is it not obvious that this question cannot be answered by the two extremely narrow inquiries being carried out? The Government repeatedly rest on the phrase that no evidence has been found to suggest that anything has happened which is worse than what has been admitted. Is it possible for either of the two inquiries which are now going forward actively to seek evidence —for instance, by calling on evidence from officials who are now retired —instead of passively glancing through the papers?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, if I did not answer one of his questions. Official researches have been very extensive, and it is believed that the main facts of Mr. Wallace's case as disclosed by the available papers have now been established and that the record has been set straight. The Government have been extremely open in volunteering this information to the House. Again no one could argue that Ministers have sought to cover up anything at all.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may just say to my noble friend that obviously no one ought to take lightly the fact that the Government, or Ministers, were misled by public servants of any kind. That is a serious matter and obviously ought to be looked into. But if ever there was a mare's nest it is surely the mare's nest of the dirty tricks against the previous Labour Government. I should have been one of the first to notice if any allegations had been made to the detriment of either of the two Home Secretaries, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was one, or either of the two Prime Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Callaghan.
I think I should have been the first to have been told of all this had there been a dirty tricks campaign actually in progress. In fact I think it is known to every single noble Lord and noble Baroness in this House that not a shred of suspicion has ever fallen upon the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, or the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Their reputation is wholly unsmeared. If there ever was a dirty tricks campaign, it would be difficult to imagine anything more fatuous or unsuccessful.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend on the particular points that he made. I can say that disinformation in the early 1970s seems to have been aimed at paramilitaries and consisted mainly of attempts to show terrorists in their true light—initiatives by Mr. Wallace and others to counter terrorism at the peak of PIRA attacks, when there was a lack of experience in dealing with them. No evidence —I repeat, no evidence —has been found that such campaigns were aimed at politicians or at government.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there has been widespread agreement on his remarks about Colin Wallace and the inquiries that are about to take place? We would all accept that some inquiry must be made there, although we shall have to wait for a month or perhaps more for the Calcutt inquiry to report. However, does the Minister accept that the problem goes much deeper than that, as has been said by noble Lords on both this and the other side of the House?
It is not just a question of righting Mr. Colin Wallace's predicament, important though that is. It is a question of the whole situation surrounding these documents, the reports, and so on. It is all right for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to say that he would have known. How would he have known? Nobody else knew. Why would they have
440
told the noble and learned Lord? None of us can believe that they would have sought him out to tell him that this existed when they did not tell anybody else. Therefore, I do not necessarily accept that that would have been the case. We are now all concerned, despite the Minister's assurance that this was a simple operation against the Provisional IRA. That may well be true, but we cannot now accept that without seeing the necessary documentation.
That brings me to my final point. I would want some assurance that, when these documents that the Calcutt inquiry is to call for are produced, they will be publicised. How will the press and television be restricted in their reporting of this because by then the recently passed Official Secrets Act will be being implemented and there will no doubt be a ban on television and press and public comment on these issues generally? Can the noble Earl tell me how that will be dealt with in the light of the new Official Secrets Act? If the noble Earl takes those factors into account, is it not all the more essential that we should have a judicial inquiry as soon as possible, and that the findings should be publicly debated?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord on the particular point that he raises, I can tell him that Mr. Calcutt's conclusions and recommendations, and the Government's decision, will be made known to Parliament by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept from me that, while I am grateful for the solicitude of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, he slightly misunderstands my concern. It is not my reputation that I am concerned about. I was not aware of any smears—whether it was because I was not a big enough target or for other reasons —that were directed at me.
What I am concerned about is not smears against me or other Ministers particularly, it is what may, or may not, have gone on in the security service for which I was the Minister responsible. On this issue, when so many rumours consistently arise, I feel that those who bore that responsibility are entitled, when they ask for it, to have a fully inquiry.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is trying to imply that there should be a public inquiry about the whole situation. As I said before, it is most regrettable that some inaccurate information should have been given to Parliament and to Mr. Wallace, and this may call for departmental action. However, it is the Government's view that no purpose would be served by holding a public inquiry.
The possibility that an injustice may have been done to Mr. Wallace by the manner in which his appeal to the CSAB was conducted will be dealt with by Mr. Calcutt's investigation. Mr. Calcutt's inquiries could take him into sensitive and highly classified areas, and that is why there will not be a published report. It is a serious and unjustifiable aspersion on Mr. Calcutt to suggest that his investigation will not be thorough and wholly impartial.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how long it is anticipated that Mr. Calcutt's inquiry will take? Will his responsiblities under that inquiry in any way impinge on his duties as chairman of the Takeover Panel?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that the second part of my noble friend's question has not much to do with the matter under discussion, if I may say so. As regards his investigations and the inquiry and the length of it, it is hoped that it will be conducted as soon as is possible once all the evidence has been taken into consideration.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that —
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his replies so far are completely unsatisfactory? They certainly do not satisfy me, nor indeed this side of the House. Is he further aware that this is not a matter of party politics, but a matter of proper government and the role of Parliament within proper government? Is the noble Earl further aware that, over the last six months, hundreds of questions have been asked in the House of Commons about this matter? They have not been satisfactorily answered. Indeed the impression has been given that the Government have wished to evade answering proper questions.
Is the noble Earl aware that the public, as well as the House of Commons and Parliament in general, this House as well, will be more than uneasy as to what has gone on? He will know that a former Home Secretary, Mr. Merlin Rees, has just said in another place that there was clearly an attempt —in fact, not an attempt but something which actually occurred —by army officers and security forces to act outside government and outside Whitehall. That is a matter for serious concern.
When we have a situation where parliamentarians are not allowed —or perhaps they are allowed to ask questions about the security services but are never given answers —it is incumbent upon the Government, in order that the public may be properly satisfied and their confidence restored, to have a proper judicial inquiry into all aspects of this matter. Nothing else will do. If the Government do not agree to it at this stage, they will be hounded and pursued until they do.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government fully realise that this is a sensitive problem, and that is why they have acted in a proper way. That is why they have brought forward the present solution. They have reviewed the problems. They have decided what to do in the circumstances. I can only repeat that they have acted in a responsible and proper way, as they should have done.
5 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the main issue concerning the House is not so much the inquiry about justice for Mr. Wallace, important though that is, as the issue as to whether and, if so, when, why and to what extent Ministers
442
have been misled? Does he also not agree that in a service of this sort and over this period of time the interests of the present Government and of their predecessors and their Ministers are the same, and that therefore Ministers of previous governments could rely safely upon Ministers of the present Government to see that justice is done internally where there have been miscarriages of justice and to ensure that miscarriages of responsibility are not repeated?
Finally, does my noble friend accept that we on this side of the House realise that these matters, if one can be sure that they are done, are better done in private rather than debated at length in the national press, as would be the case if there was an inquiry of the sort that has been asked for?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I quite agree with the last point made by my noble friend regarding the privacy of such a case and its conduct. I can also tell my noble friend that Ministers necessarily have to rely on the advice given to them by their officials in a case of this kind. It would not be proper for them to see papers recording the advice given to, or the views expressed by, Ministers of a different party.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, first, is he not aware of the accuracy of the point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkins —namely, that for months, if not years, some people in the public service have been fully aware of the fact that Parliament had been misled? That is absolutely obvious from the circumstances of this case. Is that not another reason why there should be an independent judicial inquiry into these matters?
Secondly, he told us a few moments ago that we are not even to hear the full truth of the Calcutt inquiry on the narrow question involving this former public servant. He has told us that we are going to see only the recommendations and that we are not in fact going to see the full report. Is the noble Earl aware that his answers today will simply stir up still more suspicion as to what has been going on and add to the climate of suspicion which now exists over these episodes?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, on the second point made by the noble Lord, I do not believe that would be right because the Government, I repeat, have acted in a proper, sensible and responsible way. I do not believe that what he envisages will actually happen. As regards Parliament being misled for many years over this particular question, to the best of my knowledge that is not the case.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the "The World at One" today Mr. Joe Haines, who was in the office of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, for most of the time, went on record just to say that these rumours about stirring up trouble against political figures and Ministers were a load of rubbish? He also said that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, had made inquiries of the CIA about this matter and that they also came up with the view that it was a load of rubbish. He did, I admit, accept that it was possible that one or two of them might have had and I quote —"a glass

443
of Jameson's and mumbled something". But that is as for as these things got and I do not think we should be getting too over-excited about a rumour which has gone on and has been shown by people who were in the office concerned not to have any substance.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can only thank my noble friend for that particluar piece of information that he brings us hot from the press.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is it not very evident that the Government have totally underestimated the seriousness of this situation? There are two reasons for saying that. The first is that this matter, which is described by the Government as a "dirty tricks campaign", appears to uninitiated minds like my own not necessarily to be the kind of case where everybody who has succeeded in hiding something for years will now come forward voluntarily and present all the papers and information about the matter. Is it not the case that with this dirty tricks campaign the reputation of the secret services upon which this country relies will never be cleared? Is this not a constitutional matter which has been seriously misjudged and underestimated by the Government? If that were not the case, the Leader of the House would have thought it proper to take this matter up.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that all your Lordships would recognise the very good service that the security service has performed, and continues to perform, in this country, in spite of all the prevailing conditions. I believe that the other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is unwarranted and unjustified for the reasons I have already given: in other words, I repeat that the Government have been frank and candid about this case and have brought it into the open so that it may be discussed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's difficulties, but would he not agree on reflection that it is somewhat premature to say that a further or wider inquiry may not be necessary? Is it not the case that what Parliament and the country will hear in due course, when the distinguished lawyer Mr. Calcutt has completed his work, is a Statement by his right honourable friend and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, that the substance of that Statement and the evidence which Mr. Calcutt hears will not be made available to Parliament or to the country?
Would he not agree in all the circumstances, given the undoubtedly grave constitutional implications of this case, that a public inquiry may in due course be absolutely essential if the honour of the Government and of Parliament is to be preserved?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards a further and wider inquiry, that may or may not be necessary. I believe I said "may" before, but equally it may not be. Concerning the need for a public inquiry, with respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I have very firmly given the reasons why we consider that a public inquiry is not necessary.
444
Perhaps I may just repeat the two most important reasons. The first is that any possible injustice to Mr. Wallace in this disciplinary case is being remedied by the Calcutt investigation. Secondly, no information has been found to substantiate allegations of disinformation or black propaganda campaigns against politicians or Ministers of the day. I gave other reasons for not having a public inquiry before which I think and I hope your Lordships understood at that time.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
5.9 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 37.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 178ZAA:
Page 30, line 4, at end insert —
("( ) requiring authorised practitioners to have one named person, who shall be either a solicitor who has in force a practising certificate or a licensed conveyancer, who shall be directly responsible for ensuring that conveyancing services are carried out according to any rules or regulations made under this Part;").
The noble Lord said: Before this important Statement was taken, your Lordships heard with some interest of the protection the public would need when going to someone who was not a solicitor, be he a licensed conveyancer or an authorised practitioner, when certain aspects which are treated usually with conveyancing might be relevant for the client concerned. In answering the concerns expressed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dealt with the power that he has under this clause to make regulations. I think that the inference which the Committee properly took from him was that he was well aware of the need for this public protection and that the regulations, after consultation, would be made as befits the duties that he thought were cast upon him.
Of course one of the safeguards as regards an "authorised practitioner" was contained in the Green Paper entitled Conveyancing by Authorised Practitioners. It provided that each authorised practitioner must have one named person who is responsible for ensuring that conveyancing services are carried out according to the code. Therefore, that is a most important provision and it is a safeguard in regard to the matters about which we were talking in relation to authorised practitioners but it is not written into the Bill.
In regard to previous amendments the noble and learned Lord referred to the power under Clause 37 to make regulations. I should tell the Committee, with respect, that I have looked carefully at the provisions contained in that clause and I am not sure as a person —although that would not be important but I am told that the Law Society is also not sure and that is much more important —that there is clear power under the clause to make a regulation covering this requirement. Therefore, I ask out of an abundance of caution, if the Committee so feels, that this provision should be included in the Bill so that if the regulation-making power is not contained in Clause 37 this important matter is not left to drift. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I rise briefly to express my support for this amendment. I share the doubts voiced earlier by my noble friend Lord Rippon about the efficacy of these provisions and their usefulness to those members of the public whom they are supposed to benefit. In the event, I think that members of the public would be less well protected than they were in the past. I believe that this amendment would go some of the way towards focusing responsibility for the advice given on those concerned.
I am much concerned that without such provision there is more than a danger that banks and building societies will lack the modesty to say that a particular case is beyond their knowledge and that it ought to be dealt with by a solicitor. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, I very much hope that my noble and learned friend will at least look again at the matter and will perhaps accept the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I too support the amendment. It raises in the proposed regulations the other important principle. We have already dealt with the principle of fair competition but this is the principle of adequate protection of the public. These twin principles must be reflected, as I think my noble and learned friend accepts, in the regulations. I ask with the greatest respect, would not the amendment fall within the ambit of Clause 37(1)(a)? The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested that perhaps this could be, so to speak, the ultra vires power of the clause. I merely suggest, with respect, that it could fall within the scope of that paragraph.
The Lord Chancellor: As I said, the structure of the clause is that paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)) indicate the objectives which are to be secured. I think that it is implicit in the form in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has moved the amendment that he believes that this particular power would be within the scope of those objectives. However, what is in question is whether there are sufficient powers under subsection (2) to achieve that result.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, strictly speaking the powers do not need to be spelt out in much detail, although I believe that it is helpful to do so. Moreover, so far as concerns this particular matter, I intended that it should be covered by the regulation-making power contained in subsection (2)(b), which reads:
"as to the supervision, by persons with such qualifications as may be prescribed, of such descriptions of work as may be prescribed".
In other words, I have the power to say what the qualifications are that the people must possess in relation to each particular part of the work. I believe that by this method it is possible to make regulations covering all the matters referred to in the noble Lord's amendment. Indeed, it will do so with greater particularity than the terms of his amendment would permit, because I could make different descriptions in relation to different classes of work. It may well be that in practice more than one class of work may be in question.
I hope in the light of that explanation that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the
446
amendment. I should say that I certainly have in mind the desire to make regulations along the lines he described. Moreover, I have endeavoured to secure that the powers which are laid down will clearly cover that situation. Of course that is in accordance with advice that I have so far received.
Lord Mishcon: If the noble and learned Lord has said that he has sought advice on the matter, that he has the power, in his view, to make regulations covering the specific matters mentioned in the amendment and that he agrees with the spirit of what is proposed, it would be quite wrong for me to press the matter to a vote. I have accepted from what he said —and, I hope, properly so —that we have an assurance from him that the provisions of this amendment are very much in his mind. I understand that he feels that he has the power under Clause 37 to make a regulation covering the matters contained in the amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 178ZAB:
Page 30, line 5, leave out ("persons with such qualifications as may be prescribed") and insert ("solicitors having in force practising certificates, or licensed conveyancers,").
The noble Lord said: I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said in replying to the previous amendment. On re-reading subsection (2)(b), it seems to me that it may be unsatisfactory on two grounds. However, our amendment only addresses one of the potential defects. If I read the paragraph correctly, it would seem that it may not be necessary for the entire conveyancing transaction to be supervised. The paragraph says that only,
"such descriptions of work as may be prescribed",
will be subject to supervision. However, we all know that a conveyancing transaction consists of four main parts; that is, the contract stage, the title stage, the drawing up of the transfer deed and the completion stage. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell the Committee whether it is intended that the work undertaken in respect of one of those stages may not be subject to supervision, or is it intended that every part of the transaction will be supervised, but by different supervisors, each with a different qualification?
Our amendment requires that all stages of the transaction should be supervised by a solicitor or a licensed conveyancer. Obviously the authority, if we need an authority, for that principle is to be found in paragraph 2 of the proposed code of conduct to which my noble friend has referred. It is also to be found in the Notes on Clauses. We are told there that the Government believe that the present state of the law relating to conveyancing is such that a legal qualification such as being a solicitor or a licensed conveyancer is necessary for proper supervision.
Therefore from these Benches we should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could respond to the amendment and confirm whether or not it is envisaged that every stage of the conveyancing transaction will be supervised. Would he also

447
confirm whether or not it will be supervised by the same individual? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As concerns the individual, subsection (2)(c) endeavours to give sufficient detail of what I have in mind for this purpose,
"requiring authorised practitioners to arrange, so far as is reasonably practicable"—
which is quite a strong form of obligation—
"for each transaction to be under the overall control of the same individual".
That is intended to secure the individual's control, that the responsibility should be on an individual.
As I said in answer to one of my noble friends who asked me about this earlier, I believe that it is important in a body such as a building society or bank for a client to be able to go to a particular individual on the understanding that that individual carries the responsibility for that transaction. There is a need for practical considerations to be taken into account: the individual might be ill, on holiday or something similar and reasonable arrangements would require to be made. However, that is the idea and it is important, and that is the purpose of subsection (2)(c).
In subsection (2)(b) the idea is that I should be able to specify qualifications. The qualifications that I have in mind are the same, except that a barrister can do conveyancing at the moment. Perhaps the best known of these are the conveyancing counsel attached to the Chancery Division —recondite conveyancing indeed. The qualifications will be prescribed and those concerned would be solicitors, licensed conveyancers or barristers.
The phrase,
"of such descriptions of work as may be described",
was put that way in order to make it possible to differentiate, if necessary —I do not know that it will be —between different types of work and to specify possibly in some detail precisely what work requires to be supervised. I have in mind that the conveyancing transaction as a whole should be under the supervision of a particular individual.
The point is that the qualifications of the individual might possibly vary between one type of transaction and another. As I stand here, I do not envisage that but if we are making powers that are intended to last, it may well be that, as matters develop, different types of work might merit different qualifications. For example, a conveyance might involve advice in relation to surrounding circumstances. The work there might appropriately be done by one class of practitioner —for example, a solicitor—but it might not be appropriate for a licensed conveyancer. Therefore it may be important to have the power to differentiate between different parts of the work or different types of work in regard to the qualification required to perform the work. My present intention is on the lines that have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in moving the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: When we are talking about supervision under Clause 37(2)(b) it does not seem
448
to me that it touches the question of who is giving the advice, whether it is the licensed conveyancer or the solicitor. That seems to be a different question. Regarding supervision, it seems to me that within the terms of the paragraph that supervision could be provided on the hot line somewhere. I rather feel that the two paragraphs which we are examining, subsection (2), paragraphs (b) and (c), suggest that a situation might be tolerable where a person with suitable qualifications was supervising the work of an organisation in, say, Halifax. However, at the various places on the ground where the client or customer wishes to be helped and where the work will be carried out, there may be nobody with such qualifications as we are seeking. If that is the intention behind this, I find it surprising and unacceptable.
The Lord Chancellor: That is certainly not the intention behind this. Clause 37(2)(c) requires that the transaction should be,
"under the overall control of the same individual".
That is designed to link an individual to a transaction for the reasons that I specified. Subsection (2)(b) is intended to deal with the qualifications that such a person must have in order to supervise a transaction. The description of these qualifications has to be prescribed. Therefore, for example, my intentions as matters stand are that I require that there should be the same solicitor, licensed conveyancer or barrister in overall control of every ordinary conveyancing transaction. The only reason for having power to make different qualifications in respect of different descriptions of work is the one I have suggested.
Lord Prys-Davies: We shall obviously have to read the reply of the noble and learned Lord carefully. However, it seems to me that there is a clear difference between paragraphs (b) and (c). In the latter paragraph the Bill requires the transaction to be,
"under the overall control of the same individual".
It does not define the qualifications required for that individual to exercise control, whereas Clause 37(2)(b) refers to "supervision". I should have thought that that was different. The person who exercises supervision needs to be qualified. But there is no assurance in paragraph (b) that the entirety of the conveyancing transaction will have to be under the supervision of a person with qualifications.
Looking to the future, one envisages a big organisation taking on board conveyancing transactions and the whole floor of a building could be a conveyancing factory, we go from stages 1 to 2, to 3 to 4 and I am not sure that throughout it must be under the supervision of a person who is legally qualified, although nominally the whole transaction is under the control of an individual, as required by paragraph (c).
I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said. We shall have to consider whether this is a matter which we need to return to at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 178ZAC:
Page 30, line 10, leave out ("same") and insert ("one").
The noble Lord said: I am conscious of the fact that I am a lesser man than the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and I am also conscious at the moment that I am not a lawyer. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I stumble through this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, has asked me to offer his apologies to the Committee, but even Liverpool solicitors have to go and earn their money occasionally. He is about his lawful business in that great city. I call Liverpool a great city but as a Mancunian that rather sticks in my mouth.
In moving Amendment No. 178ZAC I thought it would make sense to speak also to Amendment No. 178ZB. They are not directly linked but I believe they can be dealt with together if the Committee will permit me to do so. I intend to speak mainly to Amendment No. 178ZB, the effect of which would simply be that the client would be told the identity of the person who is in overall control of his transaction. The amendment also seeks to permit the client to have reasonable access to that person at reasonable times. I understand that this provision has the support of the Law Society.
I believe that in a sense the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor assisted me in this matter when he said that it was his intention that clients should be able to deal with one individual. I believe those were the words he used in relation to the previous amendment. People are afraid that they may only be able to see the person who is in the front office and they may find it difficult always to see the person in control of their case unless there is some provision to make the regulations state that they shall be able to get in touch with the person in overall control of their case. That is the simple concept behind these two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I wish to support the amendment. It seems to necessitate that in a large firm one person must supervise all the transactions for one individual. However, that may mean too great a work load for one person. In a large firm there may well be several partners with equal supervising skills who could divide up the work between them. One partner could supervise certain transactions while another partner could supervise others. If the amendment is accepted, all the transactions will be supervised by one individual, but in a large firm that person does not necessarily have to be the same individual as such a step may involve too much work for him. Therefore, I believe the amendment is an improvement on what is stated in the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of these two amendments and what we have in mind is very much the same. I have in mind that a particular individual who is qualified in accordance with the qualificaton regulations should have the overall control of a particular transaction. I envisage that the same person should carry out all the affairs relating to that transaction. In other words, when a client enters a firm's offices and gives his instructions to a Mr. X
450
he should see the same Mr. X later on if a problem arises as regards for example, completion of a transaction or some physical matters affecting a property. It is important that the client knows who is dealing with his transaction and has access to that person. That is necessary in the organisations that we are discussing. We have tried to set out in the White Paper what we have in mind. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are intended to produce that result.
As regards Amendment No. 178ZB, the power to make these arrangements is sufficiently contained in the clause as it stands. As I said in the White Paper, it is intended that a qualified person should offer to see the client at the beginning of a transaction and then explain all the circumstances in plain language.
The advice that I have received suggests that the arrangements that I have set out can be achieved under this clause. I appreciate the point about a client seeing the same individual and I shall consider that to see whether the wording can be improved, but the intention is that the client should see the same individual throughout the entire course of the transaction.
Lord Airedale: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his comments. I understood the words "each transaction" to apply to every transaction. I believe others may read it in that way. If the clause can be considered and made easier to understand that should be a great help.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. His advice is bound to be far better than mine on these matters. Nevertheless, I hope that he will reconsider this matter and consider the words "overall control" because they could be considered in certain circumstances to apply to someone who is remote from what I have described as the front office. I hope that when the wording of the regulations is drafted that point will be taken into consideration.
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble Lord sits down I should make it clear that I have in mind that the person to whom the client will have access is the person who is in overall control of his case and that the client is not put off in the front office as it were. The person he sees should be the qualifed person who is in charge of the transaction. The words "overall control" are intended to signify that. Obviously typists, secretaries and other people will help in carrying out the transaction but the client should be able to see the qualified person who is responsible for his case and who is giving directions in it. I shall certainly look at the provision again in the light of what has been said, but that is the purpose that I was trying to serve.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. We all accept that that is his purpose. However, I am still slightly worried that large organisations may need that purpose spelling out to them. No doubt the words that the noble and learned Lord has uttered today will spell it out for them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 178ZB not moved]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 178ZBA:
Page 30, line 10, after ("individual") insert ("who shall be either a solicitor who has in force a practising certificate or a licensed conveyancer").
The noble Lord said: I believe that I heard the noble and learned Lord correctly, and if I did not he will of course chastise me in his usual gentle and courteous way. I understood him to say that under Clause 37(2)(c) he sought to ensure that the qualified person who had overall control of the matter would be the person that the client would see. I caught the words "the qualified person". However, there is no mention in Clause 37(2)(c) of the person in control having to be a qualified person. For that reason my amendment states that the person:
"shall be either a solicitor who has in force a practising certificate or a licensed conveyancer".
I heard, and the Committee will have heard, the noble and learned Lord very correctly mention a member of the conveyancing Bar. I certainly would have no objection to the words "solicitor with a practising certificate, a member of the conveyancing Bar or a licensed conveyancer" being inserted in the Bill. If I heard the noble and learned Lord correctly, that was his intention. May we have that stated clearly in the Bill? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor:I regard Clause 37(2)(b) as dealing with qualifications. Clause 37(2)(c) is intended to deal with the continuity of control. I intend to provide that the properly qualified person should be continuously in control of a transaction and that it should not pass from one qualified person to another.
The purpose of subsecton (2)(b) is to set out the qualifications. There could be 10 solicitors in an office, all fully qualified with up-to-date practising certificates and having paid their dues to the Law Society. However, I believe that the firm would not be providing a good service to the client if on his first visit he saw solicitor A, when he came for the second time he saw solicitor B, and so on. The fact that the person he sees must be a solicitor, licensed conveyancer or member of the conveyancing Bar is dealt with by paragraph (b). Paragraph (c) sets out the intention that the client should not see A, B, and C but he should see A all the time unless there is a very good reason why he cannot see him on a particular occasion, in which case there might be an arrangement for substitution. That is the point that I have tried to cover. I believe that it is a very important point in relation to the type of business in question.
I should like to retain that emphasis. To repeat the qualifications in paragraph (c) reduces its effect and is confusing. I believe that continuity is important. It should be the same individual who responds to the client. In an ordinary solicitors' or licensed conveyancers' firm in private practice one would hope and expect that that would normally happen. In a large practice it might not be easy. However, I should particularly like to see that emphasis in relation to corporate business. I have tried to set that out in the White Paper. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that to focus only on the identity of the individual is effective. That is what
452
is intended by paragraph (c). I should like to retain that emphasis.
Lord Mishcon: I should not dream of wasting the time of the Committee. Having regard to the clear statement of the noble and learned Lord that the qualifications under paragraph (b) will be clearly laid down in regulations, that they will be those of a solicitor, licensed conveyancer or member of the conveyancing Bar, and that those qualifications are also intended to apply to paragraph (c), I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that clarification.
Lord Coleraine: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may say that I am still worried about the drafting. My noble and learned friend has made his intention clear. That is why I raised the question earlier this afternoon. However, some Members of the Committee will regard paragraph (b) as relating to supervision and paragraph (c) as relating to what happens on the ground. I and other Members of the Committee will look very carefully at the drafting, and I hope that my noble and learned friend will also consider those points.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful for the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, which, as always, are intended to be helpful. I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 178ZC:
Page 30, line 11, at end insert ("or potential conflicts of interest and for the purpose of this paragraph acting for two or more parties in one transaction shall constitute a conflict of interest").
The noble Lord said: The masquerade continues. I seek to insert in line 11 words the effect of which would be to enable regulations to be made preventing authorised practitioners from acting for two or more parties in one transaction. In addition to banning acting for vendor and purchaser, that could extend to acting for lender and borrower.
I am advised that the amendment embodies the policy that the Government adopted in 1985 —namely, that lending institutions should not be permitted to act for those borrowing money from them. The Law Society supported that policy. However, in the Green Paper the Government indicated that they had changed their mind on the issue. The Government claim that banning the conveyancer employed by the lending institution from giving financial advice to the client will eliminate the conflict of interest. However, it will do so only at the expense of the client, who will no longer be able to ask for independent financial advice. I beg to move.
Lord Boardman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 178AZC, which stands in my name. The issue is rather wider and, I suggest, more important than some of the discussions on drafting which we have

453
had earlier this afternoon, important though those were. It touches the heart of conflicts of interest.
I was delighted to hear from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that before producing the regulations he will initiate wide consultation and that regulations will be introduced under the affirmative resolution procedure. I shall not attempt to comment on drafting, particularly that of my own amendment, which I confess is somewhat amateurish. The principle at issue is that of conflict of interest.
I am particularly grateful to see my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in his seat, because I know that the matter is one in which he took a very active interest in 1985 and 1986 during the passage of the Building Societies Bill.
The purpose of the amendment is to create a presumption of a conflict of interest where an authorised practitioner acts for more than one party in a transaction unless the interests of each party are the same. The words:
"unless the interests of each party are the same",
are intended to cover cases in which the practitioner is doing work for more than one party, each of whom has the same interest in the work being done and the result of the work. For example, it is intended to cover the case where a solicitor or licensed conveyancer is acting for the purchaser (mortgagor) and also for the mortgagee. I understand that that is usual practice in the case of building society mortgagees. The work for which the solicitor or licensed conveyancer is paid is to ensure that each of the parties has a good title to the property being purchased or mortgaged. I do not believe that a conflict of interest arises in such cases. It has always been accepted that that is so. It was certainly accepted when the Building Societies Act was debated in 1985 and 1986.
The position is very different if the authorised practitioner is also acting in other capacities for one of the parties. If that practitioner is a bank or building society, possibly with an estate agency subsidiary, and also a tied insurance agent, quite different considerations arise. First, the building society or bank acting as an authorised practitioner cannot give independent financial advice. Quite apart from what may be in the Bill, under the Financial Services Act it would be unable to do so because all of the major banks, with one distinguished exception, and almost all the building societies are tied agents and free only to offer their in-house product to their customer or client. No choice can be offered and no advice can be given. The independent solicitor is in a quite different position. He is not so constrained. He can advise on alternatives that are available. I understand that the rules of the Law Society prevent solicitors from being tied agents; they must be independent intermediaries.
Secondly, under the Bill an authorised practitioner could have a special interest in securing for the group of which he is a member fees that flow from services outside the conveyancing—estate agency fees, survey fees, commission on endowment policies or other insurance policies. In addition, there may be
454
the benefit of securing and investment of funds, a benefit for which institutions are often prepared to pay a commission to those who introduce the business. There are a number of benefits totally outside the conveyancing operation which would flow to the institution acting with an authorised practitioner.
There is a further point of considerable importance. At present there is no statutory requirement, and there is nothing in the Bill, requiring that any of those fees, insurance commissions, survey fees and the like must be disclosed to the client or customer, nor do they have to be accounted for. By that I mean that they must be paid over to the client.
In the case of the independent solicitor or licensed conveyancer the position is completely different. Any fees have to be disclosed and credited to the client. I believe that there is a quite different position in each of the two situations that I have outlined. The authorised practitioner, with his varied interests in the transaction, must be subject to tremendous conflicts of interest. Indeed, as I understand and recall it, that was the problem in the Building Societies Act 1986.
At that time a very real concern was the conflict of interest that could arise on the lines that I have mentioned in the present case. I suggest that those conflicts were the reason why the powers included in the Building Societies Act were not implemented. I have recently reread some of the debates that took place in this House and another place at that time in which the doubts that I have expressed were very clearly stated in the context of the Building Societies Act. Therefore I ask why the Government have changed their views.
Since 1986 the trend has rightly been strongly toward consumer protection. In fact legislation has been tightened up against conflicts of interest in a way that did not exist before. The Financial Services Act is an attempt at that, though perhaps it is not one of which we should be very proud. I see no justification today for relaxing the safeguards which at present exist against such conflicts. If it was unwise to do that in 1986, I ask why it should be wise to do so now when a far wider range of services is on offer.
I see the attraction of the one-stop shop but, as has been said many times, property represents the single biggest transaction that most people will ever enter into. Surely they should be quite clearly and independently advised on it. During the Second Reading debate I gave an example of how even today the innocent purchaser can be exploited. Under the Bill as it stands I believe that the position could be considerably worse.
I also fear that a consequence that is likely to flow from the Bill in its present form is that a few large chains of financial services firms, estate agents, insurance agents and authorised practitioners will be created, backed by massive television and press advertising to promote the one-stop conveyancing shop to which people are urged to go. The effect on the high street solicitor could be disastrous.
It will not be only those who require conveyancing who will suffer. Small and medium sized businesses

455
will also be affected. The CBI has expressed its grave concern about that possible danger. The people who will suffer are the deserted wives who want the high street solicitor to help them deal with their very severe problems, those people who want to make a will or those who need someone to defend them in the local court. Those and other such matters that come across the desk of the high street solicitor are cases in point. The high street solicitors are needed and they may not be there.
I feel that it must have been such considerations that persuaded the Government not to implement the powers in the Building Societies Act 1986. I believe that that was a wise precaution. I also like to believe that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham played a major part in the wisdom of that decision, but I know not.
However, as a solicitor who has not practised for upwards of 25 years and as a more recent banker, I do not put forward these views or support this amendment on behalf of either of those competing interests. I support the amendment on behalf of one section whose views have not been heard very much in this Committee in the past few days. I speak on behalf of the customer who I believe will suffer if these proposals go forward unamended. I support the philosophy that underlies this amendment.
Lord Templeman: There is a great problem here and I am not sure how the Bill will resolve it. I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to resolve it.
As I understand Clauses 34, 37 and 48, there is nothing to prevent, and the Law Society could not prevent, a limited company being formed of, say, 150 accountants, 50 solicitors, 50 barristers and an assortment of builders and insurance advisers which also constitutes or is tied to a building society or insurance company. There is nothing to stop such a large firm having a small branch in Tolpuddle.
The local farmer who goes into that local branch is rather surprised that the solicitor with whom he used to deal has been driven out of business, but he is faced by a charming representative of that company. He asks, "What can you do for me?" According to Clause 37, he is told, "We can see that you borrow some money. We can see that you take out an insurance policy. We can see that your conveyancing is carried out. If you have any trouble with your vendor you can go to our solicitor's branch for it to carry out the litigation. If the litigation becomes very recondite and goes to the House of Lords, we can see that our barristers conduct your case for you. Eventually, my dear sir, you can apply to our funeral service at the end of the day".
The effect of that conglomerate must be borne by the client who will have to take it or leave it. He will have lost his own friendly solicitor. The effect on high street solicitors in general may be fatal; and if the high street solicitor goes, the independent Bar will go.
I accept that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor does not intend that either branch of the
456
legal profession should be eliminated. He intends that they should be freshened up by competition and he hopes that by such means there will be reduced costs and less delay. I shall not debate the matter because nobody knows what the net result will be. However, I ask him to consider what the likely effects will be if such great conglomerates can come into existence. I believe that they are the only threat in this Bill. From my point of view I do not think that rights of audience raise a threat. The threat is the big conglomerate.
There are already enormous firms of accountants and large firms of solicitors. The only effect that I have observed is that when they are engaged, cases and appeals take much longer and become less meritorious and costs are increased. I myself have not seen any benefit to the public, although I assume that the great conglomerate clients and corporations get a good service from them. I find it very hard to believe that they will give a good service to the individual in the country.
If the net result is to drive out the local solicitors and damage the Bar it will be the very result that my noble and learned friend wishes to avoid. I have long felt that that is the only real danger in this Bill. If it is realised, it will be unintended and I hope that some of these amendments will enable precautions to be taken against it taking place.
Lord Coleraine: The intervention of the noble and learned Lord is most apposite. We had to wait a long time for his first intervention and I am glad that the second one has come sooner. I should like to say a few words about conflict of interest in support of the thrust of both the amendments.
I recall that during the passage of the Building Societies Bill when institutional conveyancing was being put forward the question of conflict of interest was very much in our minds. I drew to the attention of the House a case which had been brought to my attention. It concerned a solicitor in the Midlands. A client was offered an advance by a building society which was to be repaid by an endowment policy. The client came to the solicitor. The building society instructed the solicitor to carry out the mortgage side of the conveyancing. We always think that in these cases there is no conflict of interest involved. It has already been suggested in the debate that that is so.
However, in this case there was clear conflict of interest because the solicitor took one look at the details and saw that the repayment arrangements through the endowment policy proposed by the building society were not suitable for his client. The solicitor did what I like to think I would have done: that is, forget about any question of conflict of interest and tell the client that he would do better to get a different mortgage. The solicitor did this, and the building society was absolutely furious.
It seems that when one is in private practice it is one's privilege to be able to give such advice to a client. I pity the solicitor trained in this way, acting for an authorised practitioner, who, when he sees such a situation, has to keep silent.
6 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I should like to say something about conflict of interest. I am very much less qualified than those who have spoken so far. However, I am much concerned about conflict of interest in relation to the one-stop shopping concept. Obviously, it has its advantages and its attractions. I put myself in the position of a young married couple who are trying to set up house. Although they have a little money they cannot buy the house out of their own resources. As matters now stand, they often go to a quite small firm of family solicitors where they happen to know one or more of the partners. They say what their situation is. The partner who knows the family affairs rather well may say, "Look, have you enough money to borrow at all? Ought you not for a time at least to have rented accommodation? Would you not be wiser to borrow the money off your father-in-law rather than go to the big business firm with the building society whose attractive advertisements appear on television? Do you realise that if you buy a house under mortgage you are liable to lose your home after five years if you cannot keep up your payments? The building society is all right. The mortgagee will re-possess. Do you not think that perhaps this company rather than that company offers you better terms of greater security?".
That is what a medium-sized firm of family solicitors will do for the ordinary young married couple setting up home together. I see a quite different picture emerging as the young man enters the shiny self-opening doors of a big conglomerate of one kind or another —my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches knows far more about that possibility than I do —to be offered a sequence of services but never to be told the facts of life in relation to his own financial circumstances and those of his fiancee.
What is worrying about this part of the Bill —and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor knows that I have been worried about it for a long time —is that insufficient attention has been drawn to the inherent conflict of interest between a lender and a borrower which arises in the case of almost every borrower who is setting up house. This one-stop shopping concept is all very streamlined, attractive and modern, and will be backed by a great number of very useful services, and no doubt a very honourable set of people, but everyone who has acted in a professional capacity of any kind —whether he is a doctor, solicitor or anything else —knows at the bottom of his heart that one cannot advise somebody if one has an inherent conflict of interest involving that client or that patient and someone else with a different interest.
I have felt for a long time that the Government have not paid sufficient attention to this moral possibility. It is one of only a number of issues that give me great concern as a matter of principle. I do not know whether or not these amendments are well drafted. I am not competent to say that. I am however deeply concerned about the underlying professional morality of what is proposed in this part of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may be allowed to add a couple of sentences. The noble and learned Lord and many Members of the Committee will know that very strong representations have been made by the Law Society not for its own good or for the good of its membership but because of its worries about the very points that the noble and learned Lord has just made.
I should like to give another example. The instance of the young married couple is very typical. All of us know the problems that many such couples have in purchasing their first house. Will the Committee accept the example given by the noble and learned Lord and reflect for one moment? When that couple go through the portals so vividly described by the noble and learned Lord, would there be a temptation for the solicitor within the organisation we are discussing to suggest that it might be a good idea if both husband and wife entered into the mortgage deed? If the conveyance was made in their joint names, would there be a conflict of interest in the sense that there is obviously more security for the lender if there are the signatures of both husband and wife rather than one? If the couple walked into the independent solicitor's office that solicitor might explain what was at stake if both husband and wife did not have a purchase in joint names. What would be the situation if only one of them entered into the conveyance as the purchaser and only one of them entered into the mortgage with the lender, bearing in mind that in this day and age husband and wife are usually earners in their respective employment?
I am very perturbed —and the Law Society always has been perturbed —about conflict of interest. I would be lacking in duty to my profession, I believe, if I were not to echo those fears, worries and concerns on behalf of the public in the same way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has done.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, although I have not been taking part in the debate as a Scot —I have been listening to and taking part in discussion on the Bill relating to Scotland —I am very concerned about conflict of interest. I ask the noble Lord for information. Perhaps we may consider a young couple who are selling a house. They go to their family lawyer in a small country practice and ask him to act for them. They put the house on the market and a price is decided. In a small country town it may happen that the person to whom the owner wishes to sell his house is a long-standing client of a solicitor in the same firm. I understand that in Scotland solicitors are allowed to act for the seller and the buyer in the same transaction if both clients are long-standing customers of the firm. That is so in England. I see the noble Lord nodding his head.
Similar problems must arise in this case because the solicitor acting for the buyer may also be in a position to arrange for a mortgage to be provided for the buyer. He may attach an insurance policy —life and fire insurance —and receive commission for arranging it. Is there not a conflict of interest within that small solicitors' practice which is not dissimilar from that which we are discussing in the arrangements under the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: If the noble Baroness will permit me, and if the Committee will be indulgent, I shall endeavour to point out to her that, although in England and Wales it is the rule of practice that solicitors are not normally permitted to act for vendor and purchaser, they can do so if both are long-standing clients of the firm. That exception does not operate if the solicitor believes that there is the slightest chance of a conflict of interest. If he believes that there is such a chance the exception does not apply. If, knowing of the conflict, he continues to act for vendor and purchaser he will be acting wrongly and unprofessionally.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: Long before I became involved with a financial institution I felt great concern about the proposals that financial institutions should be entitled to provide those services together with lending services. I hope that it will not be thought disloyal to the financial institutions with which I am involved if I say that I still have the same reservations.
Essentially they are the twin reservations about the conflict of interest and the effect on the high street solicitor. I echo what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman. I believe that the high street solicitor, together with the independent Bar, is the most accessible face of justice. If he is diminished in terms of availability to clients the Bill will have a retrograde effect and will not advance the position in terms of access to justice.
As regards conflict of interest, I cannot attempt to put the matter as well or with as great experience as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. However, I wish to pose the following illustration. Let us suppose that a bank or other major financial institution has offered a mortgage on particular terms to a potential borrower. Let us also suppose that, after being offered a perfectly appropriate choice, the borrower has decided to take the benefit of the conveyancing services of that same financial institution. It may be that the solicitor employed by that institution knows that better financial terms are available from another financial institution. What is to be the duty of that solicitor? In practice, is he to be able to say, "Don't take this building society's terms; you would do much better by going elsewhere"?
I recollect that in the White Paper the Government expressed the position by saying that the solicitor who was employed by the institution would, in law, owe the primary duty to the borrower or client. I have always wondered how practical and realistic that position is. I am bound to say that I still wonder.
I wish to add a further consideration in this area. We are all agreed that the transaction of the purchasing of property is probably the most important single financial transaction into which most people enter. I firmly believe that it does not necessarily call for advice only in regard to conveyancing. A number of other questions must also be raised when a couple or an individual have the conveyancing transaction carried out. Those questions may involve consideration of personal circumstances and decisions and advice given on
460
questions such as: in which names should the transaction be put? Is a will necessary at that time? Ought a trust to be created? In my view, it is almost imperative that the person who carries out the conveyancing transaction should be in a position to give such advice.
I am conscious that my question strays slightly outside the scope of the amendment, and I apologise. However, I should be grateful if, in response, my noble and learned friend would indicate whether he contemplates that those who are qualified to carry out conveyancing must in all cases be qualified to give the other advice that it is necessary to receive at the same time.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wish to ask a further question following on from the comments of my noble friend Lord Mishcon. If an employee of an authorised practitioner is also acting for the borrower, is there not a special need to protect the confidentiality of the information which the employee has collected in the course of a conversation with the borrower? Otherwise, is there not a possibility that the employee might be tempted to disclose that information to his employer in breach of privilege? I am conscious of the decision given by the Court of Appeal two years ago in the case of Goddard v. Nationwide Building Society. I wonder whether the Bill as it stands might reverse that decision.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 37 provides that the regulations may in particular make provision designed to avoid conflicts of interest. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has suggested that there is an inevitable conflict of interest between the purchaser and the person from whom he borrows in order to complete the purchase. That is the fundamental point made by my noble and learned friend.
That was a matter to be faced because Parliament passed the Building Societies Act in order that it should be implemented. I knew of no decision not to implement it until these proposals came forward to replace those in the Act. When I considered the situation I felt that there were difficulties about the arrangements contemplated in the Building Societies Act, particularly the idea that the Lord Chancellor should be responsible for licensing individual authorised practitioners. Following the advice that I have recently received from my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, I do not think it right for the Lord Chancellor to have that responsibility. Therefore, the Bill intends to make the Lord Chancellor more remote from the individual grants.
The second point relates to the question of conflict of interest. I came to this matter and endeavoured to face it. I knew, as I am sure did many Members of the Committee, that it is very common —indeed, it is the commonest method of having professional conveyancing carried out in these cases —that the same solicitor acts in the conveyance for the borrower as the purchaser of the house in the conveyancing, and also as the solicitor for the lender in the transaction. In the vast majority of cases, that is the way it arises.

461
I know the legal profession well enough to know that it would not tolerate that if there was an inevitable conflict of interest. Therefore I believed that it was not maintainable to suggest that there is always or inevitably a conflict of interest in this situation. But I consider that there might be conflicts of interest depending on individual circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and other Members of the Committee have said. I asked myself how one can deal with that. I took the view that the way to deal with it is that the professional person should have the responsibility of saying whether there was a conflict of interest in relation to the transaction, and, if there was, the building society or the bank would not be able to act. That is the purpose, among other matters, of the initial interview; namely, that that be a matter for determination by the professional person in the light of his standards of competence and conduct as laid down by his own professional body.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out in answer to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, where a problem of that kind arises in relation to other transactions the professional person must consider that and decide whether there is any probability of such a conflict, and, if so, take the necessary action.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I disturb the noble and learned Lord in the middle of his statement; if so, I shall sit down at once. However, if he has concluded his thoughts on this matter, for the guidance of the Committee (because I am sure that he knows the situation) I raise this point. Independent solicitors find themselves acting for a client on a prospective purchase. As regards a number of building societies, there is a roll of solicitors of whom they have had experience and whom they are prepared to see act for them, although of course they realise that they are giving that permission not to solicitors acting regularly for them but to an independent solicitor whose client is the purchaser. Quite obviously they run the risk that the main loyalty is automatically owed to the client. They are merely the solicitor authorised to act for them because they appear on a roll of solicitors. That in no way compares in loyalty or duty or to the practicalities of somebody who is employed by the building society.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord intervenes as I am seeking to develop the point. The point is that the noble Lord must therefore conclude, if solicitors do that and however they come to do it, that in relation to the actual conveyancing which is the subject of the statutory monopoly under Section 22 of the Solicitors Act there is no conflict of interest in the cases in which the independent solicitor acts for both sides; that is, both for the lender and for the borrower. He must accept that that is so; otherwise the profession would not tolerate that for a moment.
That demonstrates that as regards the actual conveyancing transaction there is frequently, at the very least, no conflict of interest which prevents the solicitor doing the necessary conveyance both for the purchaser and for the lender. As I said, I entirely
462
accept that there may be circumstances in which a conflict of interest will arise. In that situation it is for professional advice as to whether that has happened.
I have heard a great deal about independent financial advice and I am as concerned as anybody that people should have independent financial advice. However, there is no statutory monopoly associated with that. Under statute, one does not need to go to a solicitor in order to receive independent financial advice nor is a solicitor required, if conveyancing is sought, either to be in a position to give or indeed to give independent financial advice. I believe I am right in saying that recent surveys carried out by the National Consumer Council indicate that many people who go to solicitors for their conveyancing neither ask for nor obtain independent financial advice. In a great number of cases, young people who are seeking to purchase a house are referred to the solicitor in the first instance from the building society. Very often they go to the building society first in order to see what financial arrangements they can make which may be suitable to them.
Lord Boardman: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend has taken account of the fact that building societies and banks are mainly tied agencies as regards insurance and therefore are not allowed to give any other advice on a better policy, and so on. Most mortgages are now linked with endowment policies. Therefore, in that case the purchaser, or mortgagor, is not able to get the independent financial advice from one of those authorities which he could get and would get if he went to an independent solicitor.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand that point and I shall endeavour to come to it. However, at present I am dealing with the situation of a solicitor. In practice, according to the National Consumer Council surveys, the majority of those who go to solicitors for their conveyancing neither ask for nor are given independent financial advice.
There are, as the noble Lord said, tied arrangements of the kind to which he referred. Attention has been devoted to practices under which, for example, inappropriate insurance policies are given. That is in the market as it is. The mere fact that the law requires the conveyancing to be done by a qualified solicitor or licensed conveyancer in no way obliges the client either to ask for, or be given, independent financial advice. There is nothing in the Solicitors Act requiring that as a condition of carrying out the conveyancing.
If the situation is that all solicitors are in a position to give independent financial advice to anyone who comes to them about matters of that sort, then that is a very valuable service which I have no doubt they can bring to the attention of the public. That will perhaps make the public anxious to go to them rather than to the building society. However, as the Law Society itself demonstrated that sort of inappropriate financial arrangement can arise under the present situation. The purpose of the

463
conveyancing monopoly is to ensure that the conveyancing transaction is carried out by people who are properly qualified to do so. It is no part of that to require that independent financial advice be given or anything of that sort.
I agree entirely with the view that young people, and indeed older people, going to an institution, may well find it wise to take independent financial advice. They can see what are the different terms available. Some people do so quite effectively and are able to get the best that is available to them. However, that does not in any way detract from my view that if a client wishes, perfectly reasonably, to have his conveyancing done by a qualified person provided by the bank or building society, there is no inevitable conflict of interest which would prevent that happening. There is a substantial body of evidence which shows that that is what people want.
My noble friends Lord Boardman and Lord Alexander, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, think it wise that those clients take independent financial advice. There is nothing in my proposals to prevent them from so doing. Indeed, one of the effects of my proposals will be that high street solicitors come to emphasise that aspect of the service they can provide which, as my noble friend correctly points out, the banks or building societies cannot provide.
Contrary to the somewhat dismal prognostications about high street solicitors that I have heard, they could make their services much more valuable, and appear much more valuable, to clients by advertising and by emphasising that aspect of their service if this form of conveyancing is allowed. It may well be that the tremendous resources —which are of value to the public —residing in the high street solicitor will become more apparent as a result of the proposals instead of less so. The high street solicitors have no reason to be afraid of competition from this quarter. They have plenty to offer in the form of independence and independent advice so long as they are prepared to give it. They are in a position, properly instructed, to advise as to what terms are on offer and so on. Their independence is surely an important selling point which will not be available to a bank or building society under this arrangement.
It is not possible to define completely all situations in which conflicts of interest arise. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, explained in relation to long-standing clients, this is a matter on which a professional view must be taken. The solicitor must decide, in the light of his professional knowledge, whether or not such a conflict is likely to arise.
I envisage that the regulations under this clause —as set out in the White Paper —will provide that the qualified person in charge of the transaction should have a personal interview with the client at the beginning of the transaction. A number of points should then be considered, the most important being whether there is any likelihood of a conflict of interest. I also envisage that the qualified person will advise on the nature of the services he can provide and whether there are any other legal services related to the transaction which he is not able to provide.
464
He should then indicate to the client that those services are desirable but not available from him. That is a perfectly reasonable requirement to deal with the type of problem raised by my noble friend.
The interview should lead to a formulation in writing, as I said earlier in answer to my noble friend Lord Coleraine. The result would be not only a permanent record for the advice of the client but also the name of the professional person in charge of the transaction. That will give the kind of security which is required. With regard to independent financial advice, the proposals may help to concentrate the minds of the high street solicitors on the advantages that their services have to offer.
The information available to me about the ordinary people who wish to buy a house —first-time buyers of houses—indicates that many of them do not have a family solicitor. They find themselves in contact with a solicitor recommended by the building society. There are other matters in that area, in relation to estate agents and so on, which are the subject of concern and with which the Government are endeavouring to deal. The Financial Services Act authorities are concerned to ensure that adequate protection is available against such activities as the provision of inappropriate insurance policies. These are all matters for concern and for regulation, but they are not matters covered by, or in respect of which, protection is given by the existing conveyancing monopoly.
The other matter raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman is certainly a matter for consideration. He envisaged the conglomerate that provided everything one needed until the time of one's tragic demise. It is certainly possible to envisage a number of scenarios, but I have sought to provide that those who grant the authority to be an authorised practitioner have to be satisfied that the applicant's business is, and is likely to continue to be, carried on by fit and proper persons or, in the case of an application by an individual, that he is a fit and proper person. I have no doubt that consideration of the probity and character of those in control, for example, of a limited company, would be a relevant consideration in that respect.
I am anxious to secure that the services provided under this aspect of the Bill are in accordance with what the public want and that the public are adequately protected. I have sought to indicate the nature of the protection I have in mind and to provide the necessary powers to enable that protection in detail to be provided. I am extremely open to proposals for improving that protection, but I cannot accept a suggestion which would go to the very root of the legislation by suggesting that invariably there is a conflict of interest between borrower and lender in respect of the conveyancing which is the subject of the monopoly.
In the light of my explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who moved the amendment we are considering, of which I hope I have not lost sight —I think that I have dealt with the central point —will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sits down, can

465
he help me with regard to the question of conflict of interest? I fully understand his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon concerning inherent conflict between the solicitor for the borrower and the solicitor for the lender, on the ground that, "Ah but in practice the same solicitor acts". I have considered that and I probably have the wrong answer but it seems to me that where the solicitor is advising a borrower in the ordinary house transaction, whether the borrower has found the solicitor himself or the building society has supplied the name from a panel, either expressly or impliedly the mandate from the building society to the solicitor is a very limited one; namely to make sure that there is a good title. It covers nothing else. In regard to the rest of the transaction, the building society looks elsewhere.
Provided the building society's mandate to its solicitor is sufficiently confined, there is no conflict of interest. I put forward for the consideration of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor the question of whether he will have to provide that solicitors and others who are acting as employees or staff members of newly authorised practitioners in some way or other should have their mandate and responsibility to their employer similarly confined. If they are similarly confined, there will be no conflict of interest. The only problem about their advising a borrower as fully as a solicitor is that they will not know how to do it.
The Lord Chancellor: As regards the last point, I am not exactly sure on what it is based.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I mean that the conveyancer is not necessarily an expert on CTT. He is not necessarily a man of sufficient wisdom to say, for example, to someone of my age that you have to think twice before you put your house in the name of your grandchildren because you have to remember the position of your widow, and other matters of that nature. That is the kind of advice which a solicitor gives. I doubt whether a licensed conveyancer can deal with these matters, and not because he is less skilled. I do not see why he should be considering these factors because they are not in his field.
The Lord Chancellor: That is a somewhat different point. It might well be a point against having licensed conveyancers authorised to do conveyancing. The law has already dealt with that. One may now go to an independent licensed conveyancer under the Solicitors Act and perfectly lawfully he may provide the conveyancing services. I suggest to my noble and learned friend that obviously the best service you can get is the best service for you. As regards the question of the advice you ask for, that is one matter, but deciding to which person you go to get that advice depends on the advice that you wish to receive.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I only introduced the matter because I was asked. It was not part of my argument.
The Lord Chancellor: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. I was wondering about the basis
466
of the last point he made. Perhaps I can now go to the major point, which can be answered in this way. We have provided, and I intend to provide, that if the solicitor employed by the building society undertakes a transaction for a client, then his primary duty will be to the client. There is nothing to prevent that happening merely because he is employed. The terms of employment can secure that position. Therefore, his mandate from the employer will be to secure for the employer a properly secured mortgage on the property in question.
If other matters are outstanding at the time that the solicitor is approached the situation will be different. The mandate would be on the basis that matters have been settled when the conveyancing transaction is undertaken. I therefore believe it is right that the matter should be dealt with by the arrangement under which the solicitor or licensed conveyancer, at the very opening of the relationship between the conveyancing department of the building society or bank and the client, explains the situation and determines on his professional judgment and competence whether or not there is a conflict of interest or likely to be one. He must not take on the transaction if there is any such conflict. If a conflict emerges during the course of the transaction that situation must be dealt with in accordance with their arrangement. I hope the noble Lord will feel that his amendment has been adequately dealt with.
Lord Prys-Davies: Following the valuable contribution made by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, I wish to mention another aspect which causes me some concern. To some extent the interests of the employer and those of the borrower coincide because both are interested in acquiring a good and marketable title to the property. But unlike the building society or the borrower, the borrower-purchaser will be vitally concerned with the terms on which he acquires the title. The lender may be less interested in the terms provided he gets a good and marketable title.
It is my experience that solicitors spend a great deal of time and concentration advising on the terms of a contract by which the title is acquired. I wonder whether that will continue to be so under the new regime.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: We are dealing with a conflict of interest. How far a solicitor serves a client's interests is another matter. Assuming the building societies take on the service, that service will be defined and quite extensive if it is to be successful. The precise service as regards the conveyancing monopoly is defined by that monopoly. There is nothing to prevent a building society's solicitor giving services over and above those covered by the monopoly if the building society wishes to make such an arrangement.
I certainly accept the view that it is of the greatest possible interest to the client that matters affecting the property should be in accordance with his wishes. That is the reason I say that the primary responsibility will be to the client. It will be the

467
business of the solicitor employed by the building society to make sure that the interests of the client in the matter are safeguarded and there is nothing to prevent him doing so arising out of the doctrine of the conflict of interest. There is no conflict of interest with the building society in securing these matters. I believe that the standard of service given will ultimately determine whether or not the building society gets business over the long term.
Lord Tordoff: When I sat down some 60 minutes ago, having moved what I had thought was a simple amendment, I expected to be on my feet withdrawing it within two or three minutes. Talking of conflicts of interest, when I see the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, next week I shall suggest that there may be a conflict of interest as regards all the houses that he has conveyed for me in saddling me with this amendment this afternoon.
It has been a fascinating debate. I sought not to go into the generality of the subject, though as a non-lawyer I should have been delighted to do so. I believe that far too often in the debates of the Committee on this Bill there has been a feeling that they are all about professionals looking after their own interests. As a layman who has bought and sold houses from time to time and as someone without any professional interest in maintaining the future of solicitors, I support many of the things which have been said today on both sides of the Committee.
One of the most remarkable comments that I have heard for a long time came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, when he said that everybody who had spoken before him was more qualified than he. He had clearly forgotten that I was moving the amendment. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been less than fair, not as regards the amendment itself, which does not matter, but concerning some of the things that have been said. For example, he said that solicitors do not need to be afraid of competition. That seems to be introducing into these discussions a note which was not intended to be there in the first place. We are talking not about competition but whether solicitors will exist in the future if they are completely subsumed within the large organisations that we have been talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, touched on this point very strongly. If the high streets and country towns are denuded of solicitors because of the changes arising from this Bill, it will be a sad day not just for lawyers but for lay people as well.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that in most cases clients neither ask for nor get independent financial advice. I do not believe that Members of the Committee will dissent from that. However, there are cases when clients get such advice without asking for it because it is in their interests to be given it. The average solicitor deals with precisely the kind of people to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred. They are treated by the ordinary high street solicitor with a great degree of respect, including respect for their lack of knowledge. In other words, a solicitor will act in an avuncular way in many of these cases.
468
I do not intend to divide the Committee although there is clearly great concern on all sides. I do not think that this is the right amendment to divide on but I am sure that we shall come back to this subject at a later stage. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will look at this subject again and will take on board the genuine concerns expressed from all sides of the Committee and which are clearly felt outside not only by professionals but by ordinary people buying and selling their houses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 178AZC:
Page 30, line 11, at end insert ("or potential conflicts of interest and for the purpose of this paragraph benefits or rewards that would be receivable by an authorised practitioner in respect of services provided for more than one party to any transaction shall be deemed to create a conflict of interest unless the interests of each party are the same").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken at some length on this amendment and I should like only to respond to some of the remarks made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in response to the earlier amendment. He distinguished the role in conveyancing and the lack of conflict that is likely to arise in a purely conveyancing transaction, where the common interest is to pass on a good title, from the other activities that may be carried on by the authorised practitioner. My amendment was designed to try to separate those two aspects of the transaction, to say that there was no conflict of interest when the interests of the parties were the same, as my noble and learned friend accepted they were in most cases with a purchaser and with a building society.
The conflict comes in a whole range of other transactions. For example, in buying a house, nine times out of 10 a person looks in an estate agent's window and eventually sees something he likes. If that estate agent is part of one great group of estate agents, conveyancers and insurance agents, he is unlikely to start separating the various pieces of the transaction. I made a point to which my noble and learned friend did not respond. I gave an example of a grave contrast between the solicitor and the financial institution. This concerned the declaration of commission and the accounting for it.
If a solicitor advises a client to take out an endowment policy, that solicitor will receive a commission. The solicitor is bound both to declare it and to account to the client for it. A building society, an insurance company or a bank has no such obligation. The client —in that case I call him the customer —may not be conscious of the commission. I wonder whether one is inclined to import into the commercial operations —by estate agents, insurance agents and, so on —the standards which lawyers believe they particularly possess to discharge their duty to their client. Their first and overall responsibility is to their client. The estate agent, the insurance agent and so on must act honestly and properly according to the rules but he does not have the same duty as the solicitor. There is a great distinction.
For that reason, in drafting my amendment, albeit no doubt inadequately, I tried to distinguish between the conflicts that would arise in such non-conveyancing transactions and those others. The Committee has spent a long time on this debate. I do not propose to press the amendment but I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to consider the points raised in the debate and before Report come back with something to avoid the dangers or apparent dangers that some of us see in the Bill as it is now drafted. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 178AZC not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 178ZCA:
Page 30, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) requiring authorised practitioners to offer to clients free personal interviews with a solicitor or licensed conveyancer;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would require an authorised practitioner to offer clients a free personal interview with the solicitor or the licensed conveyancer. The Committee will probably recognise that this amendment rests on the authority of paragraph 5.13 of the White Paper. I quote:
"The authorised practitioner's client must be offered at least one interview with the solicitor or licensed conveyancer, reasonably near either the client's home or the property being conveyed".
The paragraph goes on to specify matters which should be covered in that interview.
The Law Society supports this amendment but emphasises in particular that it should be a free interview. If the authorised practitioner could make a separate charge for the interview, that could readily deter clients or potential clients from taking advantage of the offer of an interview. Having followed the discussion on the previous amendment, I have a feeling that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be sympathetic towards this one. He referred twice to an initial interview or a personal interview. He did not refer to that interview being a free interview. I note that reference is also made in the Notes on Clauses to the importance of the initial interview. I shall not detain the Committee any further with this amendment. It is self-explanatory. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to respond favourably to its terms. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor one or two brief questions. During his remarks on the previous amendment, he said that research carried out by the National Consumer Council tended to show that first-time buyers, young couples, do not receive financial advice from solicitors or from anyone else. However, I would point out that from solicitors they receive legal advice, and legal advice has financial implications.
I have in mind the conflict of interest which is so often not apparent to young couples whom we assume are fairly ignorant of the law. I shall give an example. Of the couple, let us say that the woman is in a secure job with a good salary. The husband
470
is an entrepreneur, in a one-man business in a risky sphere. The implications for the young couple as to whether the conveyancing should be done in their joint name, their names in common or in only one of the names are considerable. Once the legal effect is spelt out to them, they can work out the financial implications for themselves. The research discloses that in most cases financial advice is not given. But if legal advice is given, it has important financial implications which the clients can work out for themselves.
Lord Coleraine: I support the amendment. If there is to be an initial advice session it should be free. The reason is plain. The initial advice session will be a promotional one put on by the corporation in order to stitch up the customer. It will make it quite clear that in aspects of the deal the conveyancer will close his eyes to the interests of the customer and that the customer must look elsewhere. On this basis, I am surprised that we feel it necessary to discuss the amendment. It is quite obvious that any corporation will make darn certain that the interview with the client in which all this takes place is the first thing that will happen.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of the interview is in order that a decision may be come to as to whether the client will be offered conveyancing services by the institution. It is an interview with qualified persons, a solicitor or licensed conveyancer, governed by the professional standards of his or her profession. That is the purpose of it. Of course the intention is that it will be free in the sense that it will not be determined until it is finished whether or not there should be a transaction on the conveyancing side at all.
If the transaction goes ahead it may well be that the information taken at the interview will be of value and the cost would be included in the conveyancing. But my intention certainly is to make a provision on these lines in the regulations. My understanding is —and I shall check this again —that the power to make such a requirement is already in the clause. It is my clear intention to make these provisions in the regulations.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that encouraging reply. It seems to us that it is not clear from Clause 37 as it stands that the regulations would cover this point, but we are grateful for the response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that this might be a good time to break for dinner. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion may I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved, That the House do now resume —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I ask the noble Viscount until what time it is proposed to sit to consider the succeeding extremely important

471
provisions of the Bill? I hope he will not say that a target has been fixed by the Whip and that the Committee must sit until that is reached, whatever the hour. In asking the question I would venture to ask him whether he noticed —I am sure he did —that although the House sat at three o'clock Starred Questions ran over time and there was a Statement which took almost 40 minutes.
Viscount Ullswater: In responding to the noble and learned Lord I would say that a target has been set. It is to take Amendment No. 186G, which gets to the end of Clause 43. I understand that that is a reasonable target. Further than that I cannot say.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Code of Practice "Trade Union Ballots on Industrial Action"
7.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): rose to move, That the draft code laid before the House on 9th October 1989 be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this code of practice would be issued under Section 3 of the 1980 Employment Act, as amended by the 1988 Employment Act. This gives the Secretary of State power to,
"issue Codes of Practice containing such practical guidance … for the purpose of … promoting … desirable practices in relation to the conduct by trade unions of ballots and elections".
The Government believe that union members are entitled to be given the opportunity to indicate whether they are prepared to take part in industrial action before their union proceeds to organise it. We also believe—and this is an equally important principle —that proper standards of democratic conduct should be applied to that balloting process. Section 3(8) of the 1980 Act sets out the legal status of a code once it has been approved. It provides that the code will be admissible in evidence in all relevant court proceedings.
No one is or will be able to bring legal proceedings against a union or anyone else solely on the basis that it has failed to observe any provision in such a code. This code would not, and indeed could not, add a single ground for legal action to what the law already contains. I emphasise this point to make clear the distinction between this sort of statutory code which describes and recommends good practice —and the relevant primary legislation which imposes what can properly be called requirements. This code does not and could not change primary legislation.
The Secretary of State published a draft code for consultation in November 1988. The code has been modified and presented for approval in its present form in the light of representations made during the consultation period. It is now considerably shorter—only 56 paragraphs, plus one annex, as opposed to 103 paragraphs, plus four
472
annexes—despite the fact that it contains some new material. The passages on blue background are restatements of the relevant provisions of primary legislation.
The draft code, if approved, will be a valuable source of reference for unions, union members and others. Taking account of its recommendations will help to improve the conduct of ballots, and that can only continue the improvement to this country's industrial relations that was such a prominent feature of the last decade. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 9th October 1989 be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I suppose I should be grateful that the code we are now discussing is an improvement on the first draft. For once in a while the Government appear to have taken some measure of the criticisms levelled at their first draft not only by the TUC but by the CBI and others directly concerned with industrial relations. However, I really cannot welcome even this draft since it is based on and derives from legislation that I believe to be basically unfair and one-sided.
The first thing that strikes one on reading through this code is just how one-sided it all is. It is based on this Government's perception of industrial relations, which is that employees are expected to do as they are told and be grateful for having employment. If there are grievances, too bad. In a free market economy they can always move on.
No one with real experience of working life can possibly share this view. It is not in accord with the views of those, apart from unions, concerned with industrial relations, nor is it in accord with the perceptions of our partners in the EC, as the social charter shows, and we shall have the opportunity of debating this in this House in the near future. The code before us is one-sided because, although the title refers to,
"Trade Union Ballots on Industrial Action",
in fact employers have a direct involvement throughout the code.
A few examples of this will suffice. In the introduction, paragraph 1, Section A, there is a reference to the need to exhaust procedures, either formal or informal. But employers are involved in procedures too. They are the signatories on the other side of whatever agreement exists. What if the employer takes a unilateral action in breach of procedure? Suppose he tears up a recognition agreement, and it does happen. The code is silent on that.
There is a reference in the next section to the need to involve ACAS. It is significant that there is no suggestion of arbitration. After all, the Government do not believe in arbitration. Their previous legislation substantially diminished the role of a central arbitration committee, and they have steadfastly refused to go to arbitration themselves, as their attitude to the ambulance dispute shows.
Then in paragraphs 20 and 21 we see that workplace balloting is still to be permitted, although

473
postal balloting is the preferred option. Many unions prefer workplace balloting for the simple reason that more people are likely to participate in that way, provided of course that the employer will provide facilities. But although there is a recommendation that facilities be provided, there is no obligation to do so and the code is careful to emphasise that time off from work or payment for time off need not be provided by employers. Yet industrial relations are a two-way process. In any reasonable, even-handed system the employer would be as bound to provide facilities for employees as the union is bound now to ballot under present legislation.
Then there is the matter of external, independent scrutineers. Again this adds to trouble and expense for the union, although there is little evidence that unions generally have been in the habit of adopting fraudulent practices or fixing votes. Indeed I must say, as a former official, that it is not in the interests of the union to do so. The union, if it is involved in a dispute, wants to run it with as few problems as possible and with as much membership support as possible. If that support is not there the official can find himself or herself in the unenviable position of having the dispute crumble away beneath the leadership. No one in the union wants that to happen, so it is in the union's interest to ensure that the arrangements are fair in the first place.
Then of course there are the points which must be put to members when dispute action is contemplated. Obviously those in the code are in line with the present law, but the emphasis throughout the code is on the need to tell employees that they may risk breaking contracts of employment, that they must be told the consequences of a dispute, that the union must set out the potential consequences for employers and so on. All these are designed as "frighteners" to members, and of course it does not have to be so.
During previous debates in this House I and my noble friends have constantly pointed out that the contract of employment does not have to be terminated: it could be suspended. That is what happens in many European countries, where the right to withdraw labour collectively has stronger guarantees than in the United Kingdom, where we rely upon a constantly eroding system of trade union immunities.
Then we have paragraph 53, which suggests that a union, even after receiving a majority vote in a ballot, should consider all options other than authorising or endorsing industrial action as a means of resolving the dispute. It is fair to say that the union will have done this already before authorising a ballot. I have known disputes not to be proceeded with at the last moment because there has been a fresh development or a possible new offer. However, this is not in the hands of the union but in the hands of the employers. Why not give some advice to employers under this heading? I have known disputes occurring in the past —and there have been some recent ones falling within this category —which have occurred because of management incompetence and failure to communicate, or else because of a provocative stance adopted in
474
negotiations. If this Government are really intent upon minimising disputes they really have to look at both sides of industry.
Then there is the provision in legislation, and referred to in paragraph 54, that the union has four weeks from the date of the ballot in which to induce industrial action. But, as we have seen in the dockwork dispute, the union does not always have 28 days. In that dispute the period disappeared altogether because of employer-initiated action in the courts, which, incidentally, the employers eventually lost.
The Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, attempts to deal with this injustice and the Government really ought to reconsider their attitude to it. As it stands, the union may very well find itself without four weeks and might well have to ballot the membership again —a membership which by then has become frustrated not only with the employers but even perhaps with the union as well.
Then there is the section dealing with trade union liabilities. Again the one-sided approach is apparent. Individuals, it is said, may have grounds for proceeding against a union's trusteees if they have caused or permitted the unlawful application of union funds or property. The Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members may assist a member of a union in connection with such proceedings. I may say that the commissioner appears to have had very little to do since that office was established, nor have the cases she has supported always succeeded. The Government seem quite unwilling to accept that malpractice within unions in this country is very rare indeed. Such cases as have occurred have had very wide publicity, and the individuals involved have usually been dealt with very severely by their own unions.
The Government seem quite unwilling to appreciate that we have in this country a serious, high-minded and extremely responsible trade union movement, led by people who would much rather see negotiated settlements and an orderly system of resolving disputes than strikes and disruption. However, the Government persist in believing that all the problems come from one side. They attribute a decline in the number of disputes at grass roots level to their legislation rather than to the fact of widespread unemployment in manufacturing industry, which is where unions have traditionally been strongest.
No one would think, to listen to Ministers and to read this code, that employers ever acted unreasonably, ever sacked people unfairly, ever broke procedures or attempted to introduce systems of payment perceived to be unfair. Nor does it ever, so far as I am aware, criticise employers for failing to consult their workforce: yet lack of consultation is very widespread.
Since the Government do not believe in arbitration and are clearly set upon making official industrial disputes more and more difficult to organise within the law, one is entitled to ask: what is the Government's attitude to employee grievances? Do they think that employees should

475
simply put up with what they regard as unacceptable levels of pay and conditions? If that is so, it does not say very much for the Government's so-called attachment to human rights.
This is an unpleasant and unfair code, based on unjust, unfair and one-sided legislation. It is not, I understand, the tradition in this House to oppose codes already accepted in the other place, and for that reason I do not oppose this one, despite all the objections to which I have given voice tonight.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before I say anything else, may I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in particular if I have to leave before he has replied to our discussion? In mitigation, I can only say that this is the second Thursday in succession that we are debating during the dinner break an industrial relations matter, and this time at very short notice. I have to catch a train home tonight so as to be in Cheshire tomorrow morning.
I should like to thank the Minister for the clear way in which he has introduced the revised draft of this code of practice. I accept in principle the desirability of having a code on ballots concerning industrial action, and I consider this draft to be a welcome improvement on the one which was so roundly criticised a year ago, not only in this House but by practically every reputable employers' organisation in the land.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has already said, the Government have clearly taken to heart these criticisms. A major defect in the earlier draft was that it was so much more prescriptive than the law and so burdensome to trade unions that without drastic amendment it might well have had the disastrous effect of discouraging the unions from making use of lawful ballots altogether. I am glad that in the revised document there is now a much clearer separation of the law's requirements from the practice that is recommended.
Even now, however, I think that a better balance could have been struck as between employers and trade unions. The noble Baroness has already made this point in relation to the need for employers as well as unions to observe negotiating procedures, and indeed other matters. About the only advice to employers that I could find is in the footnote on page 9, where it is said that employers might consider that it would accord with good industrial relations practice to make premises available for the holding of workplace ballots.
I am relieved to find that some of the more flagrant attempts in the earlier draft to weight the scales against trade unions have now been abandoned. I have in mind, for example, the suggestion that a majority in favour of industrial action of at least 70 per cent. of those voting in a ballot, rather than a simple majority, would constitute good practice.
Welcome improvements have also been made in the examples of acceptable voting papers, particularly that in accordance with normal speech and practice the Yes box should take precedence over the No box.
476
There is one drafting point to which I should like to draw attention. In Section E, on the procedures to be followed in the counting of votes following a ballot, it is stated in paragraph 47 that,
"The union should consider and apply the following procedures".
Surely the passage should read either that the union should consider applying the procedures —I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is the intention —or that it, in fact, should apply them. If that is the case, the words "consider and" are redundant.
I noted that Clause 10 of the Employment Bill, which received its Second Reading in another place last Monday, makes provision for codes of practice to be revised so as to bring them into conformity with statutory provisions coming into force after they have been issued. As we are required tonight either to accept or to reject the code as it stands, I hope that, if and when it is revised, the opportunity will be taken to remedy apparent defects such as the one I have just mentioned.
I do not wish to speak at any greater length on the matter. In conclusion I shall simply say that, subject to the qualifications to which I referred, we on these Benches are content to accept the revised draft of this code of practice.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, in a slightly more crowded Chamber yesterday the Minister was likened to Professor Pangloss because of his determination to ensure that the Government's training and education policies go forward. He said that he saw them as the best and all for the best in the best of all possible worlds. However, tonight it seemed to me that he looked more like despondent Billy Bunter gazing down at a half empty tuck box. I must say to him that we regard this matter as not so much a tuck box as a poisoned chalice.
As previous speakers have said, it is perfectly true that this code is a great improvement upon the previous one. Indeed, it must be because it is less than half as long. As the Minister said, it has 16 pages and 56 paragraphs as against 53 pages and 103 paragraphs. Moreover, it has even shrunk in size. Indeed, if we could have had a third or fourth draft if might even have disappeared altogether. It is also better because the confusion of law and opinion which was so criticised, as previous speakers have mentioned, has been removed. The law is in Cambridge blue and the opinion is in black and white.
Of course, as the Minister said, the code is shorter despite the fact that new material has been added. They were able to add the new material and still make the document smaller because, we are glad to say, much of the silliest opinion has been cut out. In fact, it was very difficult for anyone to believe that the material which has been removed was written by civil servants at the Department of Employment. There was an apocryphal story that it was dictated by Mr. Fowler while he was in a trance. I do not know whether that is true, but it is certainly a very good thing that, along with Sir Norman, it has gone and that no longer will this code of practice tell us

477
that the trade unions should not have a ballot if it will be bad for industrial relations. We were told in paragraph 42 that it was bad for industrial relations if the workers were likely to vote for a strike.
We are no longer told that you should first ask the employer whether he thinks a ballot is a good idea —that was paragraph 16. It is now no longer necessary to find room on the ballot paper for a statement of the employer's case. That was surely the most ridiculous proposal ever to come from anyone with a responsibility for industrial relations. Moreover, nowhere does it say that if you receive a majority for a strike now —and, this proposal was severely criticised by the CBI, the TUC, IPM and other organisations —you must return to square one or you return to goal and raise the ante and you ask for a more substantial majority and a 70 per cent. turnout. That provision —thank goodness! —has been removed.
All those matters have been removed because of the criticism which was aimed at this code of practice, not merely, I am bound to say, because of a perceptive study published by the Institute of Employment Rights, but also because of the denunciation of unfairness and counter-productiveness made by the CBI, the IPM, the EEF and ACAS. That was an amazing indictment of government policy by the ACAS council, which is a bipartite, two-sided council.
When the code of practice was first introduced the Government received their worst press since the Westland crisis. Nevertheless, if we read the tiny document there is still much which remains objectionable, much which is unjustified, much which is ignorant and much which one can only charitably assume was written by a Minister in a trance. We still have the random paragraph 20 proposal that there should be a presumption that postal ballots are to be preferred to workplace ballots. No reasons are given, because, of course, there are none. Indeed, the only reasons that exist are against it because, on the whole, the response to postal ballots is larger than the response to workplace ballots.
The code of practice still spells out that the ballot form must state the possible effects of going on strike. In paragraph 34 the union still has to tell the members all the possible consequences of strike action, including an estimate of the chances that the employer might victimise them by sacking them. Under paragraph 33 the union is still obliged to give an unbiased picture of the background of the ballot and why it is required.
However, it is still unclear how far the executive —and, this is a point of some substance —of the union is allowed in the course of a ballot to campaign for a "yes" vote. The whole direction of the code of practice is that you cannot do that in the same envelope; you must do it separately on posters, with postcards or in some other way. Moreover, if the executive dares to say in the ballot form why it thinks the members should vote in favour of a strike —of course, it would be all right if it is suggested that members should vote
478
against it —then that will be contrary to the code of practice in some way and may even be contrary to the law.
The nonsense about the independent scrutineers who have to be present at each voting point still remains, together with the nonsense as regards the double envelopes and the universally available postal votes —that is, all those matters which the Government never insist upon in the Representation of the People Act. If all those stipulations had been applied to the vote in Finchley, the Prime Minister would have been declared unlawfully elected. All those requirements are there for trade unions alone.
Therefore it is not much better. Above all, we are still asked to consider every conceivable factor before strike action. Examples are the consequences of the members getting sacked, any last-minute offer by the employer and whether the size of the vote is sufficient to warrant a strike. However, a fundamental difference in the code of practice is in the approach in paragraph 56 as regards what a union does —and this really does give the Government's bias away —when it is thinking about calling off a strike. All those measures must be carried out if a union is thinking of calling a strike. However, the draft code of practice makes it clear that if a union is thinking of calling off a strike it should remember that there is no statutory obligation to consult the members before doing so. In other words, no problem of democracy arises. According to the code, it is only if the union are thinking of continuing the struggle that a further ballot should perhaps be carried out.
Therefore, the Government want ballots if they will discourage strikes. However, if you can call off strikes or avoid having strikes by not having ballots, they are not concerned about ballots at all. The code is not in favour of ballots. It is essentially a quietist, pro-employer document. The clear inference that anyone reading the document would draw is that if you are a trade union leader or member then you had better not start the miserable business in the first place. The reasons for that are clear enough. As the Minister said, they are clearly set out in paragraph 7 of the code, which reads:
"Failure to observe it does not by itself render anyone liable to proceedings".
But it continues:
"any provisions of the Code are to be admissible in evidence and are to be taken into account in proceedings before any court where it considers them relevant".
In other words, the aim of this code is the aim of the picketing code —to extend the area of legal regulation. In that way matters in this code can become part of the law, even though they have no legislative support, like the estimate of six as a maximum in the case of the picketing code.
All these matters might make courts consider that perhaps higher standards are required in workplace ballots and that it is reprehensible and may even be unlawful if there are no double envelopes. Those matters frequently stated in legislation to be reasonably practical —which means what is lawful, because what is reasonably practical and is not done is unlawful —could be taken to fit in with the

479
prejudices and preferences of the Government as specified in the code.
In other words, the basic aim of the improved code remains the same: to confuse and to intimidate. Therefore although it is less extensive, less ridiculous and less biased, it is just as ignorant. It is the same pile of old rope and we oppose it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, surprised me. She started by essentially welcoming the fact that the Government had consulted and that we had made considerable changes in our code of practice. She then went on to say that it was all a waste of time, that there was absolutely nothing good in the code of practice and that we should bin the whole thing and probably not even bother starting again. The noble Baroness said that we had been one-sided. But the draft code concerns ballots by unions of their own members, asking whether those members are willing to take part in, or to continue with, industrial action which their union may authorise or endorse. That is the subject of the draft code.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to intervene? Can he say whether the Government would consider producing a code for employers concerning good industrial relations practice?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall answer that in a moment. Proper ballots can give a union protection against legal proceedings that could otherwise be brought against it. Such ballots relate to industrial action: it is up to a union to decide to organise it. The law does not oblige a union to consider calling on its members to take industrial action. The law places requirements on employers to allow the use of premises for certain ballots in certain circumstances. The code refers to these obligations. To do more would distort the fundamental purposes of the code.
The noble Baroness talked about the TGWU last summer. We have discussed that at considerable length in other debates. I must remind the noble Baroness that the circumstances of that dispute and those proceedings had some unique features, not least the relationship to the outmoded statutory dock labour scheme. The issues considered by the courts did not relate to the conduct of the ballot but whether there could be immunity for organising particular industrial action. A union cannot and should not be able to put itself above the law simply by holding a ballot of its members.
The noble Baroness brought into her defence, practice on the Continent. I was quite surprised at that. I cannot believe that with the traditions of industrial relations that have been built up in this country over many years the noble Baroness seriously thinks that we should bring over some of the practices that are prevalent on the Continent. That is a subject we shall enjoy discussing when we reach the debate on the social charter in a few weeks' time.
480
The noble Baroness also stated that trade unions were reasonable or were led by reasonable men. That may well be so; we also know that the history of the last two decades shows that that has not always been the case. There is a good argument for saying that the reforms —and they are reforms —brought in over the past 10 years have done more to help industrial relations than anything else.
I turn to the point about employers. It is directly in the interests of employers to treat people, employees, as valuable assets; to treat them as fairly and equitably as possible. That is backed by legislation. We have sex discrimination legislation and equal pay legislation. We have industrial tribunals and health and safety regulations. That is what is important in protecting individual employees.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is still here. I hope we shall not delay him too long so that he misses his train. I welcome his acceptance of the code of practice. I know that his party believes in these approaches to industrial relations, as we do. The noble Lord mentioned some drafting points. He said that we should look at paragraph 47 of the code and that the unions should consider and apply those words. So far as I can see, the unions should consider all the recommendations and apply them as appropriate. In some cases there may be a need to adapt them to circumstances. The requirements for postal ballots, for instance, are not the same as for workplace ballots. Obviously, a code like this, over the years, may become outdated. Changes may be required. We shall keep an eye on it and correct any defects as they arise.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, missed the end of the debate yesterday. I think that he would have enjoyed it. However, I am sure that he had a better dinner in Oxford. The noble Lord described my opening speech as "Billy Bunter-esque". All I can say about that is that it says more about the kind of literature that the noble Lord reads.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is unhappy. He is always unhappy when he comes to talk about industrial relations. However much we consult and make changes, however much we read his pamphlets written in the past, however much the officials in the Department of Employment try to accommodate him, the noble Lord is still unhappy. Today I can see quite clearly why: he and his party are isolated. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said that he welcomed the code. We obviously welcome it, the employers welcome it; but the noble Lord is still unhappy. That is because fundamentally he is more interested in trade unions while we are interested in trade union members. I think that I have dealt with all the points. I hope that the House—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. The noble Lord says that I am unhappy. I can assure him that if he took the code away and burned it I should be very happy.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is precisely because the noble Lord is not interested in the rights of trade union members or of democracy when it

481
comes to dealing with trade union ballots. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) (No. 2) Order 1989
7.38 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is well known. It has been laid in accordance with Section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. This requires the Secretary of State to review the upper limits on the amount of a week's pay used for calculating certain payments and awards under employment protection legislation.
In reaching our decision this year, the Government have sought to quantify an obligation that we acknowledge exists for this limit to keep some pace with the overall level of inflation. At the same time the Government are mindful of the effect that any increase could have on business. We are not required to consult but nonetheless we have as usual undertaken consultations with relevant employer and employee organisations. These reveal, not surprisingly, that employers are in general against any increase on the grounds of the extra costs imposed on industry while employees, on the other hand are in favour of increases that are in line with average earnings. Having very carefully considered these views and having taken into account other factors, as the Secretary of State is required to do, we have decided to increase the limits by roughly 6.8 per cent. Thus the limit on a week's pay will rise from £172 to £184 and the limit on the daily amount of guarantee pay will go up from £11–85 to £12–65. Certain other limits relating to guarantee pay will not be increased this year and the Secretary of State has laid a report explaining that. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister for his clear explanation of this order. We on these Benches certainly do not oppose increasing these limits. I note that workers, as one would expect, want an increase in line with the wages index, and I can understand that. However, on the other hand I think that in current circumstances the amount, which is roughly in line with current inflation figures, is broadly acceptable. With those comments, we have no objection to offer to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.41 to 8.5 p.m.]

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 37.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 178ZCB:
Page 30, line 13, at end insert —
("( ) requiring authorised practitioners who or which are willing to add the costs of conveyancing services to loans being made to their clients to be prepared to add the costs of such services to such loans whether or not the conveyancing services are provided by the authorised practitioner").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may move this amendment to a crowded Chamber. I shall do so briefly. An obvious ill could be caused if we are not careful. Lenders could say to borrowers, "We realise that you do not have a lot of money. We would be perfectly prepared to lend, in addition to the loan, the conveyancing costs provided that you use our conveyancing department". That would lure the borrower quite unfairly into that conveyancing department unless there were a regulation specifying that such an offer of an additional loan for conveyancing costs should apply regardless of whether the borrower used the conveyancing services provided by the lending institution or those of an independent solicitor. I do not believe that I need say any more in support of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Both in the Green Paper and in carrying the matter through it has been my view that something of that kind is required in the regulations. I believe that the powers that the Bill confers are sufficient to enable that to be done. I certainly have every intention of including a requirement on those lines in the regulations.
Lord Mishcon: Having regard to that very clear reply and the intention of the noble and learned Lord to regulate on precisely the lines of the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 178ZCC is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 179 or 179A.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 178ZCC:
Page 30, line 14, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Lord said: With the agreement of the Committee, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 180E and 180F. The amendments deal with the obvious necessity that proper care should be exercised, regulated by the Bill, regarding clients' money. The handling of clients' money by authorised practitioners should be covered by the same rules as at the moment govern

483
solicitors and licensed conveyancers. I hope that the Committee and the noble and learned Lord will feel that in drawing up the new clause which forms part of the amendments we have carried through those provisions which relate to solicitors and licensed conveyancers. We have done so with the object of safeguarding the public in the same way as they have been safeguarded by statute with regard to those other callings. I beg to move.
The Earl of Shannon: The noble Lord has rather beaten me to the post. Although his amendment, Amendment No. 180C, comes after my amendment, Amendment No. 179, obviously it covers very much the same ground. Should my amendments (Amendments Nos. 179 and 180) fail, I shall very strongly support Amendment No. 180C to which the noble Lord has spoken but not yet moved.
The Lord Chancellor: Paragraph (f), which is the last paragraph of subsection (2), provides that the regulations may deal with the handling by authorised practitioners of their clients' money and it will be possible for regulations to be made on the lines of these amendments if that is what seems to be required after full consultation.
I certainly intend the regulations to be as full as is necessary appropriately to deal with this matter. The matter is exactly covered by paragraph (f). I believe that that is in sufficient detail for the purposes of the primary legislation.
In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I believe that what I have said also covers the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As I might have done on the previous amendment, I merely remark that my noble and learned friend has very properly said what he proposes to do, which is a perfectly adequate way of dealing with these matters of detail, rather than to have a permissive clause stating that the Minister may in particular do so and so.
I am glad to say that there were only two words of difference between my noble and learned friend and myself. I ventured to say that the whole of that subsection was unnecessary. My noble and learned friend said that strictly speaking it was unnecessary. I am glad that only two words remain between us. I shall return to the matter at the Report stage.
Lord Mishcon: In view of the very clear statement made by the noble and learned Lord, I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 179:
Page 30, line 14, after ("handling") insert ("and financial surveillance").
The noble Earl said: I would have asked leave of the Committee to speak to both my amendments, Amendments Nos. 179 and 180, but as they have recently been very well spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he dealt with an earlier
484
amendment which he has withdrawn, and in view of the clear, very convincing and reassuring statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not intend now to propose an amendment which would merely add a belt to an otherwise perfectly satisfactory pair of braces. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 179A:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert ("and interest on client's money and commissions").
Lord Foot: This amendment is very largely covered by the next one which appears on the Marshalled List. In those circumstances it is not moved.
[Amendment No. 179A not moved.]
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 179B:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert —
("( ) as to the disclosure of and accounting for commissions.").
The noble Lord said: Following the usual courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which I much appreciate, I move this amendment. Clients who deal with institutional conveyancers should obviously be able to expect the same rules as to disclosure and accounting for commissions as if they were dealing with a solicitor. The matter is as simple as that. Accordingly I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: A power to make arrangements along these lines is already indicated, as it were, as a particular in subsection (2)(e). This is a matter on which I should certainly wish to consult in detail because there are many detailed matters that would have to be dealt with in relation to this area if it were to be the subject of regulations. The noble Lord may therefore take it that I shall have this very much in mind as a matter to be considered in relation to the reglations. I shall undertake full consultation upon them when they are drawn.
As I said, there are a number of difficulties inherent in this area which I need not elaborate at this stage but which I shall certainly bring out in the consultation on the regulations. In the light of that reply I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may respectfully tell the noble and learned Lord why I am in some difficulty and I hope that he will understand my position. The ambiguous wording of the White Paper causes me some problems because in the White Paper the statement is made that:
"Authorised practitioners will be required to disclose to the client any commissions or like benefits".
In the Green Paper it seemed that there would also be an obligation to account. Disclosure is one thing, as the noble and learned Lord very readily appreciates; accounting for it in exactly the same way as solicitors have to do is an entirely different matter. I wonder whether the noble and learned

485
Lord can help me by making it quite clear to the Committee that it is not just the question of disclosure at which he will be looking but he will also be looking at the question of accounting.
The Lord Chancellor: I have the question very much in mind and in that sense I am looking at it. I propose to make it necessary to separate out the cost of each item and each part of any services which a building society, for example, may offer. That may well be a way of dealing with this point. I shall certainly keep in mind all that the noble Lord said. As I observed, there will be full consultation on this matter as we draft the regulations.
Lord Mishcon: I obviously do not want to indulge in cross-conversation of any length with the noble and learned Lord. But as this is a consultation on principle and not a consultation on the wording of any regulation, does he intend to have those consultations during the various stages of this Bill in this Chamber so that at all events by the end of Report stage we should have an opportunity to have a statement from him which at least would enable us to say what the principle ought to be when we reach Third Reading?
I say respectfully to the noble and learned Lord that I well understand that the wording of regulations may require great care. However, he has shown in his remarks quite clearly that there may be an issue of principle involved in this matter. Can the principle at least be announced in very definite terms before the Bill reaches this Chamber so that the opinion of noble Lords on this matter may be taken if, by some mischance, the noble and learned Lord were to decide the principle in a way which was not acceptable?
The Lord Chancellor: I doubt very much whether it would be possible to produce the draft regulations at this stage. I feel that we must try to get right first the primary legislation. Certainly I undertake to have full consultation about the principle. Also, these regulations would come under the affirmative resolution procedure.
The point of principle and the point of detail in this area are very closely connected. So far as I am concerned, in principle I should find it perfectly easy to think of something along the lines of the noble Lord's amendment. The difficulties arise from the way that that might be applied. Therefore I think it quite difficult to dissociate the detail from the principle in this situation. I therefore believe that the best I can do is to make it absolutely plain that very full consultation on the regulations will be afforded before this part of the Bill becomes effective and the regulations are produced.
Lord Mishcon: I know that the noble and learned Lord is trying to help me. He will not think me in the slightest degree discourteous if I say that he has only gone a very small distance down the path to helping me. What I believe is so essential is that the principle of not only disclosing but accounting for commissions, which solicitors have to do —and I am limiting it to that —should be the rule in regard to
486
other institutions that are enabled by this Bill to take the place of solicitors.
If the noble and learned Lord will go a little further down the road to help me by saying that he accepts that there should be a principle —and I ask for it only in general terms —to disclose and account by the institutions about which we are talking, then I leave the question of consultation as to how it is done and the wording of the regulations until a later date, the timing of which I do not even ask for. But I cannot leave the principle, which is such an important one for the public safeguard and for equitable treatment, unanswered.
If the noble and learned Lord can go that distance with me on the general principle, I can obviously take a certain course. If he does not go down the road with me by agreeing to the principle, then I have to consider the position very carefully.
The Lord Chancellor: I have said as much as I reasonably can at this juncture.
Lord Mishcon: It is a great shame. I thought that I had opened a door that the noble and learned Lord could have entered with ease. However, unless he can reconsider his statement, he has given me no alternative but to divide the Committee.
8.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 179B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 30.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boardman, L.

Lytton, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Mishcon, L.

Byron, L.

Monson, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Coleraine, L.

[Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Renton, L.

Foot, L.

Roskill, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hacking, L.

Shannon, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lawrence, L.

Templeman, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hives, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Butterworth, L.

Joseph, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lyell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Ferrers, E.

E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hastings, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 179C:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert —
("( ) Any solicitor who is carrying out conveyancing services on behalf of an authorised practitioner or who is supervising the carrying out of such services must have in force a practising certificate.").
The noble Lord said: The object of the amendment is to require any solicitor who is carrying out or supervising conveyancing services on behalf of an authorised practitioner to hold a practising certificate. Members of the Committee will know that it is only through the requirement that a solicitor holds a practising certificate that the Law Society is able to impose certain necessary controls.
The practising certificate is fundamental if the Law Society is to ensure the maintenance of standards of competence, conduct and integrity of solicitors. It is in the interests of the clients of authorised practitioners that such standards be maintained; otherwise some people could cause considerable damage to clients. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As I explained earlier, the provisions of subsection (2)(b) make it appropriate to prescribe the nature of the qualifications that are to be required. One would take the qualifications in relation to solicitors on the basis of the Law Society's statutory requirements. Accordingly, the powers properly to prescribe qualifications are already contained in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will consider that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps the matter can be looked at in a wider context. Ought a solicitor to be allowed to carry on any practice as a solicitor —as he would be if he were using his qualifications to carry out conveyancing work—without a practising certificate? That will require the amendation of various sections in the Solicitors Act.
The Lord Chancellor: I agree entirely with what my noble and learned friend has said. Primarily the question must be settled in the legislation dealing with solicitors. However, the prescribing powers enable me to follow that in prescription under the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for an indication of the noble and learned Lord's thinking. I do not propose to pursue the matter further. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 180:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert —
("(g) as to the establishment of a compensation fund to recompense any member of the public who has sustained financial loss.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment is similar to my previous amendment. In view of the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord with regard to
488
the handling of clients' money, I do not seek to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 180A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 180B:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert —
("(3) Prior to making any regulations under this section the Lord Chancellor shall consult with his advisory committee and the regulatory bodies governing the Bar, Solicitors, Notaries and Licensed Conveyancers.").
The noble Earl said: I do not know whether I should move the amendment because it is not mine. It has been tabled in my name in error. I do not know whether any Member of the Committee wishes to speak to it. In a previous issue of the Marshalled List it was tabled under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. However, in case any Member wishes to speak to it —I do not understand it —I formally beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I intend to have wide consultation as regards making regulations under the clause. All the interests referred to in the amendment would be among those to be consulted. The advisory committee has no specially important role but we should wish to have its views as well as those of the governing bodies of the Bar, the Law Society, notaries and licensed conveyancers.
The Earl of Shannon: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I am sure that the Member who tabled the amendment will be pleased to read that in Hansard. In view of the fact that no one wishes to speak to it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 37, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Foot: I should like to offer a few observations on Clause 37. It is of immense importance because it seeks to outline and define the obligations of an authorised person and a solicitor. More importantly, it seeks to provide safeguards for the interests of the lay client.
I acknowledge that this afternoon we have had a debate of considerable importance. However, I am left with the feeling that there is an air or unreality about the clause. Subsection (1) merely states the purposes of the regulations which the Lord Chancellor will make. Subsection (2) sets out the various matters which may be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor in his regulations. However, no indication is given of the substance of the regulations. For example, we have had a long debate about the regulations being designed to avoid conflicts of interest yet we still do not know the regulations which will achieve that object.
It is impossible for the noble and learned Lord to tell us what the regulations will be because he may not be the author. Unhappily, he will not be with us for ever. Presumably in the course of time regulations will be made by other Lord Chancellors.

489
After our long debate we have no indication, guarantee or assurance about what the regulations will provide. Therefore, we move on to the rest of the Bill with no confident knowledge of what will happen in reality and in practice as a result of the clause.
I do not know whether it would have been possible for the clause to have defined more precisely the contents of the regulations. During the course of the debate suggestions have been made from more than one side of the Committee as to what the regulations should contain and provide. On each occasion the noble and learned Lord has resisted the suggestion that he should define the way in which the regulations will be framed. That appears to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I believe that it is possible to indicate not only the subjects upon which regulations are to be made but also the nature of the regulations.
The Lord Chancellor: I have endeavoured to do that in so far as I possibly can in relation to the various matters raised. The White Paper sets out the thinking as far as it was developed at that stage in relation to regulations.
What I have said —and I think this is important —is that I undertake to bring back on Report an amendment making the regulation-making power subject to the affirmative procedure. I have also said that there will be wide consultations on these regulations before they are put forward for approval by both Houses of Parliament.
I believe that that is as full a description of the situation as is reasonably possible at this stage. I have sought to indicate, where I have been asked, what I am able to do. The reason that we had a Division on the last amendment was that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, felt that I had not been able to go far enough. I have tried to be absolutely clear to the Committee at every stage as to what is my state of thinking at present.
The noble Lord is right. This is a matter which will go into the future, but as regards the making of the regulations I cannot do more than indicate. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale put the point that the headings are perhaps not necessary. I said that they are not strictly necessary and he said that they are not necessary at all. I said that they are not strictly necessary but I put them in to indicate the headings so that Parliament may go forward on the basis that these are matters which will be considered in relation to making provisions. Those are the headings under which, as at present advised, provision is required. I hope the noble Lord feels that that is as far as we can reasonably go.
The desirability on making the list is to give as much indication as one can in the primary legislation of the matters which the regulations are designed to cover.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 180C:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation for losses caused by authorised practitioners
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall make rules establishing a fund for the making of grants or other payments for the purpose of relieving or mitigating losses suffered by persons in consequence of —

(a) fraud or other dishonesty on the part of authorised practitioners, or of officers, employees or associates of theirs, in connection with their practices (or purported practices) as authorised practitioners; or

(b) failure on the part of authorised practitioners to account for money received by them in connection with their practices (or purported practices) as authorised practitioners.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, rules under this section may —

(a) provide for the levying of contributions from, or from any class of, authorised practitioners and otherwise for financing the scheme and for the payment of contributions and other money into the fund;

(b) specify the terms and conditions on which, and the extent to which, compensation is to be payable and any circumstances in which the right to compensation is to be excluded or modified;

(c) specify the circumstances in which authorised practitioners are exempt from the rules and in particular may specify the circumstances in which bonding arrangements made by an authorised practitioner may be regarded by the Board as sufficient to exempt that authorised practitioner from the rules; and

(d)) contain incidental, procedural or supplemental provisions.

(3) Where the applicant is —

(a) a bank which is authorised by the Bank of England, under Part I of the Banking Act 1987, to operate a deposit taking business;

(b) a building society which is authorised by the Building Societies Commission, under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986, to raise money for its members; or

(c) an insurance company which is authorised under section 3 or 4 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982,

the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the fact that it is so authorised in determining whether it should be exempt from the compensation fund rules.").
The noble Lord said: The whole subject of compensation is dealt with hereafter in certain amendments. In the circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 180C not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 180D:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
("Rules concerning indemnity
—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall make rules concerning indemnity against losses arising from claims in respect of any description of civil liability incurred by an authorised practitioner or former authorised practitioner in connection with the provision of conveyancing services.
(2) For the purpose of providing indemnity the rules —

(a) may authorise or require the Board to establish and maintain a fund or funds;

(b) may authorise or require the Board to take out and maintain insurance with insurers authorised to carry on insurance business under the law of the United Kingdom or any other member State; and

(c) may require any authorised practitioner to whom the rules apply to take out and maintain insurance with any such insurer.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the rules may —

(a) specify the terms and conditions on which, and the extent to which, indemnity is to be available, and any circumstances in which the right to it is to be excluded or modified;

491

(b) provide for the management, administration and protection of any fund maintained by virtue of subsection (2)(a) above and require authorised practitioners to whom the rules apply to make payments to any such fund;

(c) require authorised practitioners to whom the rules apply to make payments by way of premium on any insurance policy maintained by the Board by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above;

(d) prescribe the conditions which an insurance policy must satisfy for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above;

(e) authorise the Board to determine the amount of any payments required by the rules, subject to such limits or in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed by the rules;

(f) specify circumstances in which, where an authorised practitioner for whom indemnity is provided has failed to comply with the rules, the Board or insurers may take proceedings against him in respect of sums paid by way of indemnity in connection with a matter in relation to which there has been a failure to comply with the rules;

(g) specify circumstances in which authorised practitioners are exempt from the rules;

(h) empower the Board to take such steps as it considers necessary or expedient to ascertain whether or not the rules are being complied with; and

(i) contain incidental, procedural or supplemental provisions.

(4) Where the applicant is —

(a) a bank which is authorised by the Bank of England, under Part I of the Banking Act 1987, to operate a deposit taking business;

(b) a building society which is authorised by the Building Societies Commission, under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986, to raise money for its members; or

(c) an insurance company which is authorised under section 3 or 4 of the insurance Companies Act 1982, the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the fact that it is so authorised in determining whether it should be exempt from any rules made under this section.").

The noble Lord said: Again, the question of indemnity has been discussed on a previous occasion. In those circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 180D not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 180E:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
("Rules with respect to handling by authorised practitioners of clients' money
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall make rules with respect to the handling by authorised practitioners of their clients' money.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, rules under this section shall —

(a) require authorised practitioners (except in such cases as may be specified in the rules) to open and keep at an institution of a kind specified in the rules acounts for clients' money;

(b) require authorised practitioners (except in such cases as may be specified in the rules) to pay clients' money into such an account;

(c) require authorised practitioners to keep accounts containing particulars and information in respect of clients' money; and

(d) require any such accounts to be examined by an accountant having such qualifications as are specified in the rules and shall require the accountant to report to the Board whether in his opinion the provisions of the rules have been complied with and on such other matters as may be specified in the rules.

(3) Where an authorised practitioner is required to have an auditor, whether by virtue of any provision contained in or
492
made under any enactment or of the rules of any professional' or other body, the rules may require the examination and report referred to in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) to be carried out and made by that auditor.
(4) For the purposes of this section and section (Accounting for interest on clients money) "clients' money" includes money held by an authorised practitioner as a stakeholder (whether or not paid by a client of the authorised practitioner).").
The noble Lord said: Again, the principle has been spoken to earlier in the debate. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 180E not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 180F:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
("Accounting for interest on clients' money
.—(1) Rules made under section (Rules with respect to handling by authorised practitioners of clients' money) shall make provision for requiring an authorised practitioner who has received clients' money to account, in such cases as may be prescribed by the rules, to the person who is or becomes entitled to the money for the interest which was, or could have been, earned by putting the money in a separate deposit account at an institution authorised for the purposes of rules under subsection (2)(a) of that section.
(2) The cases in which an authorised practitioner may be required to account for interest by rules made by virtue of subsection (1) may be defined by reference to, among other things, the amount of the sum held or received by him or the period for which it is likely to be retained, or both; and any such rules may include provision for enabling a client (without prejudice to any other remedy) to require that any question arising under the rules in relation to the client's money be referred to and determined by the board.
(3) Except as provided by any rules so made and subject to subsection (4), an authorised practitioner who maintains an account in pursuance of section (Rules with respect to handling by authorised practitioners of clients' money) (2)(a) in which he keeps money received or held for or on account of his clients generally shall not be liable to account to any person for interest received by him or it on money in that account.
(4) Nothing in this section or in any rules shall affect any arrangement in writing between an authorised practitioner and his or its clients as to the application of the clients' money or the payment of interest on it.").
The noble Lord said: The same applies to this amendment, which I do not intend to move.
[Amendment No. 180F not moved.]
[Amendment No. 180G not moved.]
Clause 38 [The Conveyancing Appeal Tribunals]:
[Amendments Nos. 181 to 184 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 184A not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 184B:
After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:

SCHEDULE THE CONVEYANCING OMBUDSMAN SCHEME
1. In this Schedule "the scheme" means the "Conveyancing Ombudsman Scheme" established by rules made under section 40(1).
2. The scheme may provide—

(a) for the Conveyancing Ombudsman to appoint his staff; and

493

(b) for the establishment and functioning of an independent body (whether corporate or unincorporate) to administer the scheme.

3. The jurisdiction of the Conveyancing Ombudsman shall be determined by the scheme.
4. The scheme may provide for the Conveyancing Ombudsman not to have jurisdiction to investigate complaints unless —

(a) the procedure for investigating complaints which is maintained by the authorised practitioner against whom the complaint is made has been exhausted; or

(b) the Conveyancing Ombudsman considers that the circumstances of the case are such as to justify his investigating the complaint before that procedure has been exhausted.

5. The scheme shall require the Conveyancing Ombudsman to investigate any complaint which falls within his jurisdiction and which is properly made to him in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
6. The scheme may empower the Conveyancing Ombudsman, when investigating any complaint, to investigate the subject matter of the complaint as well as the way in which it has been handled by the authorised practitioner concerned.
7. The scheme shall —

(a) confer on the Conveyancing Ombudsman power to require —

(i) information and documents relevant to any investigation under the scheme to be furnished to him;

(ii) the payment by an authorised practitioner of compensation where loss has been suffered by any person as a result of any matter in respect of which a complaint made against that practitioner has been investigated under the scheme;

(b) provide for an authorised practitioner against whom a determination has been made by the Conveyancing Ombudsman, on an investigation under the scheme, to be relieved of the obligation to comply with that determination on publishing, in such manner as may be required by the scheme, details of the determination and of the practitioner's reasons for failing to comply with it.

8. The scheme may provide that compensation which the Conveyancing Ombudsman may require to be paid by virtue of any provision made under paragraph 7(a)(ii) is not to exceed a specified amount.
9. Subject to paragraphs 10 and 11, a determination of the Conveyancing Ombudsman under the scheme which is, by virtue of the complainant's acceptance of it, binding on the authorised practitioner concerned shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
10. Paragraph 9 does not apply where the authorised practitioner concerned is, by provisions of the scheme made by virtue of paragraph 7(b), relieved of the obligation to comply with the Conveyancing Ombudsman's determination.
11. Where a determination of the Conveyancing Ombudsman is binding on an authorised practitioner, the Conveyancing Ombudsman shall, at the request of that practitioner, state a case for the opinion of the High Court on any question of law.
12. Where a case is so stated the High Court may direct the Conveyancing Ombudsman to reconsider the complaint.
13. A decision of the High Court under paragraph 12 shall be treated as a judgment of the High Court within the meaning of section 16 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (jurisdiction of Court of Appeal to hear and determine appeals).
14. No appeal shall lie from any decision of the High Court under paragraph 12 without the leave of the Court of Appeal.
15. Nothing in this Schedule is to be taken as prejudicing the generality of the power to make rules under section 40.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 186YA and 186ZB.
Clause 40 provides that the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board must make rules, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, to establish
494
and maintain a conveyancing ombudsman scheme to which all authorised practitioners will be subject. The clause as originally drafted only makes specific provision for the ombudsman not to have jurisdiction in certain circumstances and to appoint his staff. I decided that certain other functions should be set out, so that the board will have some guidance when it is drawing up the scheme as to the functions the ombudsman should perform and to place the scheme's operation on a sound legal basis. In addition, defining certain of the ombudsman's functions would be of assistance to applicants for authorisation who would know at least the minimum requirements of the scheme that they would be expected to belong, or be subject to. I therefore bring forward these amendments for consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I briefly say that in general terms we support the amendment. However, there is one respect in which I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider whether there is an omission here that I tried to cover in Amendment No. 177B, which is now past history.
That amendment dealt with this detail, as the noble and learned Lord may regard it; but it is important. It empowered the board, where it was satisfied that the services provided by an authorised practitioner were not of the quality which could reasonably be expected of him or it, to do one or more of the following things. First, it could determine that the costs to which the authorised practitioner should be entitled be limited to such amount as may be specified in the board's determination and direct the authorised practitioner to refund or waive its or his costs. Secondly, it could direct the authorised practitioner to secure at his or its own expense rectification of any error. Thirdly, it could direct the authorised practitioner to pay compensation of up to £1,000.
As I understand it, the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to which he has just spoken would only allow the ombudsman to require the payment of compensation and would not enable him to require either the refunding or waiving of costs or rectification of any error.
As the noble and learned Lord knows very well, the Law Society has a statutory power to require a solicitor to waive or refund costs or to rectify an error. It is a mystery to me at present as to why this board does not have precisely the same power. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will consider what I have said and possibly review it so that the matter can come forward on Report with that suggested omission rectified.
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly I am willing to look at the matter raised by the noble Lord. We thought it right to set out those powers and of course compensation is a wide word. However, I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [The Conveyancing Ombudsman Scheme]:
[Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 186YA:
Page 31, line 34, leave out subsection (4) and insert —
("(4) Schedule (The Conveyancing Ombudsman Scheme) shall have effect for the purpose of supplementing this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 186ZA:
Page 31, line 43, at end insert —
("(4A) Where the Conveyancing Ombudsman has completed an investigation he may recommend —

(a) that the Board consider exercising its powers in relation to the authorised practitioner with respect to whom the complaint was made;

(b) where the complaint involves the acts or omissions of a solicitor, licensed conveyancer, barrister or notary public, that the professional body concerned exercising its powers in relation to that person;

(c) that the authorised practitioner with respect to whom the complaint was made pay compensation of an amount specified by the Conveyancing Ombudsman to the complainant for loss, expense or inconvenience caused to him, as a result of the matter complained of; and

(d) that the Board pay compensation of an amount specified by the Conveyancing Ombudsman to the complainant for the loss, expense or inconvenience caused to him, as a result of the way in which the complaint was handled by the Board.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the recommendations that I have just spoken about with regard to the board. In the circumstances I do not intend to move it because the noble and learned Lord has kindly said that he will give consideration to the principles contained therein.
[Amendment No. 186ZA not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 186ZB:
Page 32, line 12, at end insert —
("(11) It shall be the duty of the Conveyancing Ombudsman to inform the Board of any evidence which comes to his attention suggesting that there has been, or may have been, a breach of any of the rules made under subsection (1) or of the regulations made under section 37.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 186ZC:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation scheme
.—(1) The Board may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, make rules establishing a scheme for compensating persons who have suffered loss in consequence of dishonesty on the part of authorised practitioners or their employees.
(2) The rules may, in particular —

(a) provide for the establishment and functioning of an independent body (whether corporate or unincorporate) to administer the scheme and, subject to the rules, determine and regulate any matter relating to its operation;

(b) establish a fund out of which compensation is to be paid;

496

(c) provide for the levying of contributions from authorised practitioners and otherwise for financing the scheme and for the payment of contributions and other money into the fund;

(d) specify the terms and conditions on which, and the extent to which, compensation is to be payable and any circumstances in which the right to compensation is to be excluded or modified; and

(e) contain incidental and supplementary provisions.").

The noble and learned Lord said: It is already a condition of authorisation that an applicant has satisfactory arrangements in force at all times to cover adequately the risk of any claim made against him in connection with the provision of conveyancing services, however arising. I appreciate, however, that it is likely to be difficult for authorised practitioners to obtain insurance covering their own dishonesty. I have therefore put down an amendment which provides that the board may make rules establishing a compensation fund, to be financed from contributions from authorised practitioners, the purpose of which is to compensate persons who have suffered loss as the result of the dishonesty of an authorised practioner or his employees. The rules which the board may make are to be subject to the Lord Chancellor's concurrence. I believe that it is right that express power of that kind should be provided for. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Advisory and supervisory functions of Director General of Fair Trading]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Renton: I tabled a notice in the formal way saying that I would be opposing Clause 41. However, I can assure the Committee that my purpose is merely to probe and to discover exactly what it is that the Government are getting at in bringing in the Director General of Fair Trading.
Although there are references to him in Clauses 28, 29 and 30, to which I shall come later, it is not until we reach Clauses 31 to 42 which deal with conveyancing that we find the Director General of Fair Trading is primarily mentioned. It is not until then that we find what functions he is to perform, apart from those in the earlier clauses. We should consider what part he is to play and whether it is necessary.
Clause 41 requires the Lord Chancellor to obtain advice from the director on rules to be made by the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board and on regulations made by him and binding on that board. Clause 41, in subsections (2) and (5), requires the director to consider the effect on competition of those rules and regulations.
It is also relevant to consider Clause 42, and I am sure I have the Committee's leave to refer to it, because that clause gives the director power to investigate any matter arising under Clause 41. The enforcement provisions under the Fair Trading Act are to apply to notices given by him before investigating matters under Clause 41.
We must acknowledge that the White Paper in Chapter 11 said that in order to secure competition in legal services the Director General of Fair Trading

497
would be given a part to play under the Bill. I wish to make it clear —I am sure I speak for all members of both branches of the profession —that we are not afraid of competition either from each other or from anybody else. Indeed, we are accustomed to it from each other and a very healthy thing in the public interest it has always been. However, in relation to conveyancing the Lord Chancellor and his department will have the co-operation of the advisory committee, of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board, of the Ombudsman in certain cases and of the Director General of Fair Trading. Each of those bodies will have its own bureaucracy.
I suggest that my noble and learned friend is going in for overkill by having this quadripartite supervisory machinery with regard to conveyancing practitioners. I ask him to consider whether that is necessary. Conservative Governments have always held themselves out as not wanting over-government, not wanting bureaucracy, not wanting statutory bodies to have overlapping functions; but that is exactly what we have here. It is sheer overkill.
The Committee may think that it is somewhat incongruous for learned professions to be informed that they are to be treated in just the same way as traders. We must lump it, I suppose, but I find it incongruous. It has never been considered necessary for us to be called a trade. A learned and liberal profession which provides a service to the people is what we have always tried to be and succeeded in being. My noble and learned friend should therefore consider that point.
Perhaps I may come to the earlier clauses where without previous warning the director is brought in. When I first read them I thought it must be the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I had not reached Clause 41. Let us look at Clause 28, which deals with the position of the General Council of the Bar. Under Clause 28(3) we find that:
"In the event of any question arising as to whether any provision is deemed to have been approved by virtue of subsection (2) —

"(a) the Lord Chancellor shall seek the advice of the Advisory Committee"—

we must accept that part—
"and the Director".
In Clause 28(4)(a) we find:
"In the event of any question arising as to whether any provision of the qualification regulations or rules of conduct of the General Council of the Bar requires to be approved by virtue of section 26(3) or (4)—

(a) the Lord Chancellor shall seek the advice of the Advisory Committee and the Director".

Very similar provisions relate to Clause 29, which deals with the Law Society and the grant of rights of audience. In subsection (3) of that clause we find exactly the same sort of thing:
"the Lord Chancellor shall seek the advice of the Advisory Committee and the Director".
I want to shorten this so I will not read it all out. In Clause 29(4)(a) we find the same and it is analogous to Clause 28.
We then come to Clause 30, where we have the position of the Law Society in relation to the
498
question of "rights to conduct litigation". In subsection (3) we find:
"In the event of any question arising as to whether any provision is deemed" —
I repeat "is deemed" in this case—
"to have been approved …

(a) The Lord Chancellor shall seek the advice of the Advisory Committee and the Director".

We have another reference of a similar kind to what has gone before in subsection (4)(a).
As regards these earlier clauses of Part II of the Bill, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will have to consult designated judges on some matters and the advisory committee, and the ombudsman is also given a part to play. When we are legislating in this radical and new way concerning the branches of the legal profession and others who are to be given rights of audience and to conduct litigation, we should make sure that we are not establishing an unnecessary top-weighted superstructure which will inevitably have to be aided by bureaucratic processes.
I hope I have brought to the notice of the Committee the problem which arises with regard to these matters. What we need to ask of ourselves is whether the expense and the amount of regulation and rule-making that will be required are going to secure any more competition than there is already.
9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend is speaking on clause stand part. The question is whether the Director General of Fair Trading should have a part in this matter. My noble friend knows that the statutory provisions arising out of competition law have been applied to the professions before. It is not a new thing. For example, in the past the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has had to inquire into certain rules of the legal profession.
The idea of this provision is that the Director General of Fair Trading, who has responsibility for the competition aspects of the law, should be in a position to tender appropriate advice on that aspect of any rules. The reason for that is the need to make sure that no rule inadvertently creates or confirms any kind of anti-competitive regime or has an effect such as distorting competition. That is the purpose of the clause. I believe it is appropriate to have the measure for that purpose.
My noble friend says that we have a tremendous number of these provisions but each has a distinct function. For example, there is the approval of rules in relation to rights of audience. The function of the advisory committee is to consider the rules from the point of view of their appropriateness in the interests of the public which the law is designed to serve and in the interests of securing adequate standards. The function of the director general is to draw attention to any aspect of the rules which may affect competition in the way that I have described. The function of the Lord Chancellor is to take account of all these considerations. The function of the designated judges is to ensure that the rules correctly provide what is appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice.

499
So each provision has a distinct function. We are not creating unnecessary consideration of these matters; we are providing for appropriate consideration of them and all to be done in conjunction with the ultimate decision that approves the rules in a case. So when the rules are approved they will not be subject to further inquiries under the competition law. That is quite an important matter. We are getting rid of the older way in dealing with these issues.
That is the function of the director general. I believe it is an appropriate function. I remind my noble friend that the director general commented quite publicly on the Green Papers. Some of the things he said were regarded in some quarters of the Bar as being particularly appropriate and acceptable. Therefore, he may well be a very considerable friend in important matters affecting the profession. He is an independent officer of wide experience in relation to these issues. He is able to warn against dangers whatever their source in so far as they affect competition.
One of the anxieties expressed earlier in the various debates that we have had was that competition should be fair. This is the primary responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading. Trading may not be a word which particularly attracts my noble friend. Trading is sometimes regarded as an activity which is devoid of ethical standards, but I believe that trading in its finest sense is capable of applying to at least aspects of the professional way of life.
Lord Mishcon: I hope the noble and learned Lord will not think me facetious at this hour if I ask a perfectly serious question. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made a point as regards an issue which is hurting many professional people. If anybody had told the noble and learned Lord during his distinguished career as an advocate in Scotland that he was a trader, what would have been the effect of that remark on him?
The Lord Chancellor: All I can say is that I was vice-dean of the Faculty of Advocates when we had our first passage of arms with the Director General of Fair Trading. I did not object to his jurisdiction on account of his name. I was not particularly happy with some of the issues that he was seeking to pursue, but we nevertheless had an inquiry. No doubt when the fair trading legislation is considered and if there is any question of how appropriate his title is to his functions, that can be considered. We are dealing with a statutory officer and that is the description of his function. That function has a bearing on aspects of professional life.
I hope that my noble friend appreciates that we are not creating overlapping jurisdictions but jurisdictions which are capable of being brought together in one ultimate decision in approval of the rules or in the making of the regulations.
Lord Renton: I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply but I feel bound to say that I do not find it convincing. I wonder whether he will be so good as to answer this question. Bearing in mind the
500
way in which the Bar and the Law Society have abolished restrictive practices over the years, and bearing in mind the competitiveness that already exists in the two professions, does my noble and learned friend really think that there will be less competition in future if we do without the Director General of Fair Trading?
The Lord Chancellor: I do not profess expertise in the practical effects of competition law. That is the responsibility of the director general. I can only answer that question in relation to a particular case in the light of his advice. That is why we have these provisions for taking his advice. If the decision in relation to the approval of regulations is to have final authority it is right that competition matters should be taken into account before the final decision is taken. That is the purpose, and I believe it is an appropriate purpose. I hope that my noble friend will feel that it is appropriate.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 186A:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
("Lord Chancellor's duty to report on effects on the Legal Aid Scheme
The Lord Chancellor shall report to Parliament, within two years of the Board first authorising a practitioner to provide conveyancing services, on the effect of authorised practitioners offering conveyancing services on the availablity of services provided under the Legal Aid Scheme.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the brevity of my remarks will not belie the importance we attach to this amendment. There is grave concern about the effect the provisions of this part of the Bill may have on those whose duty it is —in many cases they regard it as a privilege —to look after legal aid. This amendment is not inspired by the Law Society. It is put forward by the National Consumer Council which is extremely worried about the effect the provisions of the Bill will have on the carrying out of legal aid work. It is in order that this may be reviewed, looked at and examined periodically that the amendment is put forward. It obliges the Lord Chancellor to report to Parliament,
"within two years of the Board first authorising a practitioner to provide conveyancing services, on the effect of authorised practitioners offering conveyancing services on the availability of services provided under the Legal Aid Scheme".
I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Whatever may be the superficial attraction of this new clause, I suggest that it should not form part of the Bill. Its origin lies in concern that the conveyancing activities of authorised practitioners might lead to a decline in the provision of legal aid services. Although I do not agree that there is real foundation for that fear, I doubt both the practicality of the new clause and whether it can serve any useful purpose. It will certainly be very difficult at the very least, in the time-scale provided for, to determine the exact impact of any one factor on the general availability of legal aid services. Indeed I am seeking to make some investigations at present in another connection in relation to the spread or distribution of these services.

501
In such a field it is difficult enough to assess the overall picture without claiming to be able to match any particular cause to any particular effect. I do not believe it would be right to put a provision of this kind into the Bill if it had the effect of suggesting that the provision of conveyancing services in the manner provided for in the Bill is in some way conditional. Parliament has already shown quite clearly in the 1986 Act that it considers that this kind of provision is the right way forward. I believe that that is appropriate.
I also believe that it is right to remind the Committee that I am already responsible to Parliament for the discharge of my general function to maintain the provision of legal aid. Against this background it would be anomalous to create a particular statutory requirement for a special report at a particular time on a particular aspect of that provision, no matter how much it may be in our minds during the debates on the Bill. Of course the method of Parliamentary Question and indeed debate and so on are all available in this connection. The Legal Aid Board has a statutory duty to report in relation to its activities.
I believe therefore that we have all the necessary machinery to enable your Lordships to have any facts that are available touching on the sort of concerns expressed in this clause without this addition to the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that we do indeed have such avenues of exploring these concerns from time to time —not just at a fixed period, but from time to time —and I am sure that the Committee believes that the Lord Chancellor particularly endeavours to answer your Lordships' questions fully and fairly.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: With that last observation I would not only agree but I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the noble and learned Lord not only on his agility of mind when he stands on his feet, which all of us are noticing, but on the physical endurance that he shows in going through very long hours on the Committee stage of this Bill, retaining his courtesy throughout and a clarity of mind that is the envy of most of us. It was possibly with that in view that I hated the idea of anyone ever inferring that in the course of his brilliant legal career he was called "a trader".
Now may I just refer for a moment to what the noble and learned Lord has said. As I understand it, he feels that this should not form part of the Bill and he gave reasons for it. For the moment, if I may say so, I accept the reasons as to why it should not be a statutory provision. But may I take it from the noble and learned Lord's reply to this amendment that he would welcome the objective reports that came to him from the Law Society, for example, which would hear from practitioners whether or not their legal aid work was suffering, if it did not have to cease as a result of some of the provisions of this Bill? Do I take it from the noble and learned Lord's remarks that he would always welcome representations based on fact from the National Consumer Council, which, as I said, has anxieties? Would he always welcome
502
representations that are made based on these facts to see whether harm is being done to the legal aid scheme, which I know he values so much?
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly I welcome the information that is given to me by the Law Society from time to time, in particular in relation to any matters touching the concerns that the noble Lord has expressed, and certainly the same for the National Consumer Council. The National Consumer Council has, I think, taken the view that what we are doing here in the general pattern of it is the right way forward. That is a view that has affected my own thinking about what we ought to do.
I welcome any reports that they put in, or indeed any other factually-based reports that from time to time we receive, including the reports from the Legal Aid Board and the like. The noble Lord can therefore take it that I shall be extremely concerned, as I think I have shown in the papers that we put out about these matters. I have shown a concern for the solicitors' network and the provision of legal services generally, and I have done what I believe is reasonable to look after that point of view while still endeavouring to give members of the public the service in the conveyancing field which it appears that they desire.
Lord Mishcon: Having regard to what the noble and learned Lord has been pleased to say, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Preparation of papers for probate etc.]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 186B:
Page 34, line 5, at end insert—
("provided that in the case of any body falling within paragraph (c), (d), (e) or (f) or any person or body falling within paragraph (g) that body or person has been authorised to provide probate services by the Authorised Conveyancing and Probate Practitioners Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board")").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to ensure that any body wishing to prepare papers for probate would have to be authorised to provide probate services by an independent body. We have in mind the Conveyancing Board, which we suggest could be renamed the Authorised Conveyancing and Probate Pracitioners Board.
We have seen that under the provisions of this Bill relating to conveyancing services it will simply not be enough for a would-be authorised conveyancing practitioner to be a bank, a building society or an insurance company. Each bank or other body wishing to provide conveyancing services must be individually authorised by the board. It is just as important, in our view, in order to safeguard personal representatives and beneficiaries, that those wishing to provide probate services should be individually authorised by an external body, the conveyancing board. Of course one appreciates that a relevant distinction can be drawn between conveyancing services and probate services. Thus, for example, a bank which is an executor is not a

503
client of the bank. Nevertheless, we think that the need for authorisation is just as great as for conveyancers.
I say that because the scope for negligence and delay in the administration of an estate, or for dishonesty, is probably much greater in the course of the administration of an estate than is the case during a conveyancing transaction. Estate funds may not be placed on deposit, income on estate funds may not be accounted for, and assets may not be called in when they should have been. So we say that those bodies wishing to administer estates should have to satisfy an external body that they will, and can, comply with the requirements of the Bill. This amendment is supported by the Law Society. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I consider that one must have regard to whether or not it is necessary to establish a board's authority in relation to the system or authorisation in respect of probate practitioners. So far as banks and insurance companies are concerned, many of whom already undertake trust corporation business, we are merely extending to them the right to prepare applications for probate and letters of administration. Banks and insurance companies are already subject to authorisations under statute and are prudentially regulated. Although building societies do not at present undertake trust corporation work, it seemed reasonable to include them in the list of those who might, as they too are regulated in such a way that one could presume they were fit and proper organisations.
Further protection is provided to the client by the requirement that all new probate practitioners must belong to a complaints scheme which makes the requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor. I do not think it necessary to require these organisations to be authorised by the board.
As far as the other classes which will be authorised are concerned, these will be subject to scrutiny by the advisory committee and the President of the Family Division as well as by the Lord Chancellor. I have been giving some further thought, in the light of these amendments, as to whether or not the clause goes far enough in regard to the authorisation of these new classes. For example, is it necessary to make specific provision with regard to revocation of authorisation? I am also considering whether the legislation should set out certain standards of competence and conduct, to which the Lord Chancellor, the advisory committee and the President should have regard when considering applications from these other classes.
I would not wish to put an unnecessary authority into this particular field if it can be appropriately avoided. So far I believe we may be able to deal with the matter on the lines that I have suggested. I hope that in the light of this explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am very pleased that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has come
504
some way towards meeting these very genuine concerns of the Law Society. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 186C:
Page 34, line 11, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I think it follows from what the noble and learned Lord has just said that it is very important, indeed essential, that there should be regulations made by the Lord Chancellor for these probate services. Therefore it follows that the word "shall" should be substituted for "may". I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: It is the same sort of matter that we dealt with previously in relation to another part of the Bill. The existing power is really sufficient to enable proper regulation to be made. Of course it has the effect of ensuring that the regulations may be amended from time to time in the light of experience. Therefore, they can be improved if any loophole or defect turned out to be present in existing regulations. I hope that the noble Lord will take it that I shall consider carefully what should be done, but that he will also bear in mind that I believe that the ordinary drafting mechanism of the word "may" is adequate for this purpose.
Lord Mishcon: It may be that when I move the next amendment which deals with specifying what the regulations should cover my point will be met. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 186D:
Page 34, line 17, at end insert —
("(2C) Regulations made under subsection (2A) shall make provision with a view to securing —

(a) that authorised probate practitioners maintain satisfactory standards of competence and conduct in connection with the provision by them of probate services; and

(b) that the interests of their clients and any beneficiaries entitled under the estate are satisfactorily protected.

(2D) The regulations shall, in particular, make provision —

(a) designed to —

(i) provide for the efficient administration of estates;

(ii) avoid unnecessary delays;

(b) as to the supervision, by persons with such qualifications as may be prescribed, of probate services;

(c) requiring authorised probate practitioners to have one named person, who shall be either a solicitor who has in force a practising certificate or a barrister or a duly certified notary public or a person falling within subsection (2)(g), who shall be directly responsible for ensuring that probate services are carried out according to any rules or regulations made under this section;

(d) requiring authorised probate practitioners to arrange, so far as is reasonably practicable, for each matter to be under the overall control of the same individual;

(e) designed to avoid conflicts of interest;

(f) as to the terms and conditions on which authorised probate practitioners may provide probate services including the remuneration for such services; and

(g) as to the disclosure of and accounting for commissions.

(2E) The regulations shall also make provision for rules made under:

(a) Section (Rules concerning indemnity) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

505

(b) Section (Compensation for losses caused by authorised practitioners) of that Act;

(c) Section (Rules with respect to handling by authorised practitioners of clients money) of that Act; and

(d) Section (Accounting for interest on clients' money) of that Act, to have effect in relation to authorised probate practitioners with such additions, omissions or other modifications as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient and, accordingly any reference in such rules to the clients of an authorised practitioner shall be construed, unless otherwise provided by the regulations made under subsection (2A), as including a reference to the beneficiaries of an estate in respect of which an authorised probate practitioner is acting.").

The noble Lord said: As we see it at present, Clause 43(1) simply requires in the new subsection (2A), which is inserted into Section 23 of the Solicitors' Act, that the provider of probate services must be a member of a scheme which,
"complies with such requirements as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor".
In view of the importance of this matter, and in view of what the noble and learned Lord said about regulations, one submits that the amendment would considerably extend the noble and learned Lord's regulation-making powers and therefore would be a very welcome inclusion in the Bill, instead of the general provider clause which currently exists.
I do not intend to do more than say that as a result of the amendment the regulations would be able to deal with all mattters which were necessary to secure that the providers of probate services maintain satisfactory standards of competence and conduct —the very matter, if I may say so, to which the noble and learned Lord earlier referred —and that the interests of clients and beneficiaries were satisfactorily protected.
Much of the material in the amendment is drawn from the provisions of the Bill regarding the regulation of authorised conveyancing practitioners. I hope therefore that the logic and sense of what is proposed will commend itself to the noble and learned Lord and that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Boardman: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may intervene at this point. It may be that I have not done my homework adequately, but can he clarify the following situation? Under his amendment, what would be the remedy in the case of a building society undertaking probate services which caused acute delay, and so on, and which is not subject to the disciplines applicable under the Law Society rules which would apply to a solicitor who did likewise? It may be that I have not followed his argument, but does his amendment provide any disciplinary protection in such cases?
Lord Mishcon: I do not know whether I follow the full impact of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. Was his query connecting the quality of regulation that the Law Society would exercise on those who were conducting probate work with what I am now trying to provide in the amendment; or did I misunderstand what he said?
Lord Boardman: I asked whether there is a similar discipline which could be applied to those people, other than members of the Law Society —that is, those working in building societies, and the like—who are granted the right to operate and apply for probate but who do so in such a way that if they were solicitors complaints would be made which would lead to the final discipline of their being struck off. I asked whether his amendment contained or opened up some such discipline which would apply to other bodies.
Lord Mishcon: Yes. It is to be hoped that that would be so.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend Lord Boardman will see that Clause 43(1)(2A), which substitutes a new section in the Solicitors Act, provides that,
"The conditions are that the body is a member of, or otherwise subject to, a scheme which —

(a) has been established (whether or not exclusively) for the purpose of dealing with complaints about the provision of probate services".

Therefore, there is a scheme already provided for that purpose. I have already indicated those matters which I was thinking of in relation to the amendments. It may be that in the light of what I said regarding the earlier amendment the noble Lord will feel that the matters which he wishes to deal with will receive consideration.
Lord Mishcon: I once introduced, and the noble and learned Lord did not object to it, the adjective "favourable" before "consideration". I assume that the consideration will be equally favourable on this occasion. On that assumption, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 186E:
Page 34, line 20, at beginning insert —
("(3A) Subsection (1) also does not apply to any act done by an officer or employee of an authorised probate practitioner if —

(a) it was done by him at the direction and under supervision of another person who was at the time an officer or employee of the body; and

(b) it could have been done by that other person for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward without committing an offence under this section." ").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the unqualified staff of a body providing probate services must be supervised by a qualified person. Again obviously we have in mind a solicitor, barrister or I suppose in this case a notary public. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am happy to consider this amendment perhaps I should say "favourably" in the sense that we may be able to do something in the direction which the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord Mishcon: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that courtesy. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 186F:
Page 34, line 23, at end insert —
("2A) The intervention powers conferred by Part II of Schedule (Intervention in authorised practitioner's practice) shall be exercisable by the Board in relation to an authorised probate practitioner in the circumstances specified in Part I of that Schedule in like manner as they are exercisable in relation to an authorised conveyancing practitioner and accordingly any reference in that Schedule to an authorised practitioner shall be construed as including a reference to an authorised probate practitioner.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would enable the board to exercise intervention powers in relation to an authorised probate practitioner in the same circumstances as the Committee will remember it can exercise intervention powers in respect of an authorised conveyancing practitioner. It seems to be logical, equitable and a proper protection of the public. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This depends on whether the board has any jurisdiction in this area. As I indicated in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, so far I am not persuaded that it is desirable to extend the conveyancing board's functions into this area. Therefore it follows that the amendment would go out of this jurisdiction along with the board.
Lord Mishcon: This is a matter which I shall have to consider with my noble friends and those who have made representations to us. We shall see where we stand at a further stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 186G not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may take this opportunity of the Question having been posed to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the kind remarks he made about me a few moments ago. I am extremely grateful for them and I reciprocate them in regard to all Members of the Committee who have shown such patience in remaining with us until this time of night.
Lord Renton: The fact that I did not utter an endorsement of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about my noble and learned friend at the time should not be taken as an indication of my disagreement. Although I disagree with my noble and learned friend so much over the Bill —a great deal of it worries me —my admiration for his ability and his conscientious attitude is not in any way diminished.
Lord Hacking: Hear, hear!
Clause 43 agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  PRISON INMATES: SUICIDE
  PRISON INMATES: SUICIDE
  RESEARCH COUNCIL SYSTEM: FUTURE STRUCTURE
  RESEARCH COUNCIL SYSTEM: FUTURE STRUCTURE
  WINE SALES BY THE GLASS:CONTROL
  WINE SALES BY THE GLASS:CONTROL
  ADVANCE FACTORY PROVISION, NORTHERN REGION
  ADVANCE FACTORY PROVISION, NORTHERN REGION